Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Immoren]

When did we stop being monkeys?

We never started.
We're apes.
There is a significant difference.

Apes are subset of monkeys.
Humans are subset of apes.
Thus humans are monkeys.

[Torisakia]

This is false. You're basically ridiculing everything I'm saying. Whether it's true or not.

Show anything you've said that is true and we won't ridicule it.

This is just going in circles.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

And don't say that isn't true.

[Tlaceceyaya]

We never started.
We're apes.
There is a significant difference.

Apes are subset of monkeys.
Humans are subset of apes.
Thus humans are monkeys.

Nope. Look at that strange graph thing that isn't actually an image.

[Ostroeuropa]

We never started.
We're apes.
There is a significant difference.

Apes are subset of monkeys.
Humans are subset of apes.
Thus humans are monkeys.

This is incorrect.
Apes are not a type of monkey, monkey is its own family (Posting this again since i edited it in.)
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ape_vs_Monkey

The ape and the monkey descend from a common ancestor (Which we INVENTIVELY call the ape-monkey, which neither fulfills all the characteristics of being a monkey or an ape.)
(Also known as a Simiiform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simiiformes)

[Ostroeuropa]

Show anything you've said that is true and we won't ridicule it.

This is just going in circles.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

And don't say that isn't true.

Did we ridicule it?

[Dyakovo]

We're explaining it. All you have to do is listen.

This is false. You're basically ridiculing everything I'm saying. Whether it's true or not.

You've said something that's true?

[Divair]

Apes are subset of monkeys.
Humans are subset of apes.
Thus humans are monkeys.

Nope. Look at that strange graph thing that isn't actually an image.

Check the tree at the bottom of this:
http://i.minus.com/ifGJKcXOso8h4.png

[Somali Caliphate]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird. As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

Okay, now to move onto probability:

The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge

"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

This is what I found regarding the sun:

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.

So now that we know that this is the case, at this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also goes DIRECTLY AGAINST Evolution without a shadow of a doubt. The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. So it opposes evolution because if the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

I found this about Meteoritic Dust:

Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not an age of millions or billions. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, shows that the Earth can't be millions of years old and so the Theory of Evolution, which states the the evolution of species would happen over billions of years simply could not happen.

[Divair]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird. As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

Okay, now to move onto probability:

The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge

"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

This is what I found regarding the sun:

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.

So now that we know that this is the case, at this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also goes DIRECTLY AGAINST Evolution without a shadow of a doubt. The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. So it opposes evolution because if the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

I found this about Meteoritic Dust:

Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not an age of millions or billions. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, shows that the Earth can't be millions of years old and so the Theory of Evolution, which states the the evolution of species would happen over billions of years simply could not happen.

Shall I re-quote this evidence?

Fuck it, evidence time.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There you go somalia.

[Big Jim P]

Yes it is ridiculous, and shows you don't know what evolution is.
We are the monkeys cousin species, not it's descendent.
Try Ape.

We are still apes by the way, so yes, apes do still give birth to humans.

I knew you people were too difficult to deal with.

I have a 43 in Biology and you expect me to know what Evolution is. Great job.

I never took biology, in HS OR college and I know what it is.

[Immoren]

So is he wrong or not.

[Ostroeuropa]

So is he wrong or not.

He's not wrong technically, but we're simiiforms. Not monkeys.

[Torisakia]

This is just going in circles.



And don't say that isn't true.

Did we ridicule it?

Yes.

[Somali Caliphate]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird. As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

Okay, now to move onto probability:

The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge

"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

This is what I found regarding the sun:

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.

So now that we know that this is the case, at this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also goes DIRECTLY AGAINST Evolution without a shadow of a doubt. The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. So it opposes evolution because if the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

I found this about Meteoritic Dust:

Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not an age of millions or billions. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, shows that the Earth can't be millions of years old and so the Theory of Evolution, which states the the evolution of species would happen over billions of years simply could not happen.

Shall I re-quote this evidence?

Fuck it, evidence time.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Quantity doesn't prove anything, so quote as much as you like. Could you at least look at what I wrote, like I did for yours? And besides none of what I just posted can be rejected as being 'religious nonsense'.

[Mavorpen]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

[Farnhamia]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird. As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

Okay, now to move onto probability:

The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge

"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

This is what I found regarding the sun:

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.

So now that we know that this is the case, at this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also goes DIRECTLY AGAINST Evolution without a shadow of a doubt. The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. So it opposes evolution because if the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

I found this about Meteoritic Dust:

Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not an age of millions or billions. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, shows that the Earth can't be millions of years old and so the Theory of Evolution, which states the the evolution of species would happen over billions of years simply could not happen.

Is there something about providing on-line links that you find distasteful?

[Immoren]

So is he wrong or not.

He's not wrong technically, but we're simiiforms. Not monkeys.

So now are just bickering about terminology.

[Divair]

Shall I re-quote this evidence?

Quantity doesn't prove anything, so quote as much as you like. Could you at least look at what I wrote, like I did for yours? And besides none of what I just posted can be rejected as being 'religious nonsense'.

Quantity is irrelevant, otherwise I'd sit here posting thousands of links rather than dozens. Those are the highest quality links.

[Ostroeuropa]

Somalia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0l ... E36BEDAC75

Here. The current evolution tree.
He'll show you our ancestors, and all the relations by opening a folder-tree down.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Shall I re-quote this evidence?

Quantity doesn't prove anything, so quote as much as you like. Could you at least look at what I wrote, like I did for yours? And besides none of what I just posted can be rejected as being 'religious nonsense'.

If his links don't have any quality, then it should be easy for you to completely disprove one or two and throw the rest into doubt.

[Mavorpen]

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

This is what I found regarding the sun:

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.

So now that we know that this is the case, at this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... nking.html

A number of studies have not found any evidence for a continuous shrinking of the sun. Leslie Morrison, for example, drawing on Edmund Halley's observations of the solar eclipse of 1715, concluded that there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. His findings were reported in January, 1988 in Gemini (no.18, pp.68). Gemini is the official journal of the Royal Greenwich Observatory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also goes DIRECTLY AGAINST Evolution without a shadow of a doubt. The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. So it opposes evolution because if the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

A change in the entropy (dS) of a system is the infinitesimal transfer of heat (δQ) to a closed system driving a reversible process, divided by the equilibrium temperature (T) of the system.[2]

The Earth isn't a closed system.

I found this about Meteoritic Dust:

Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not an age of millions or billions. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, shows that the Earth can't be millions of years old and so the Theory of Evolution, which states the the evolution of species would happen over billions of years simply could not happen.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

[Somali Caliphate]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

I'm glad that you used Archaeopteryx as your example of an animal between a dinosaur and a bird, because it has been shown to be just a species of bird and not some transitional between a dinosaur and a bird:

Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75 - Luther Sunderland

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

[Ostroeuropa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

I'm glad that you used Archaeopteryx as your example of an animal between a dinosaur and a bird, because it has been shown to be just a species of bird and not some transitional between a dinosaur and a bird:

Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75 - Luther Sunderland

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... foje7jVJpU

This explains why you are wrong.

[South Otselic]

I thought this was going to be an intelligent conversation... all I see is either you accept evolution or you're an idiot... i was hoping to actually see debate and conversation.. if you're going to discuss something should there not be discussion? and not immature bashing?...