natural selection has been proven? Adaptation has been proven? Proven to do what? I need these proofs. Link please.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I don’t have Fodor’s book yet, but it sounds like it’s going to be the same premise as the one below...which, by the way, is my premise as well: that adaptive complexity does not come about by way of darwinian luck + selection, but instead by way of endogenous mechanisms, which all creatures have: http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Emergences-Evolution-Experiment-Theoretical/dp/0262513404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266015244&sr=8-1 and of course, the crummy news for you evos is this: internal mechanisms are not the kinds of mechanisms that can turn a bacteria-like creature i ...
[retrieve this message]

---

Evos will love this. http://us.macmillan.com/whatdarwingotwrong   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

The only thing that can take guilt away is love.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I thought McCain mopped the floor with Obama the other night, yet the media -- even those at Fox -- thought Obama won......I was shocked, and had to wonder if I watched the same debate as them......but I’m just as shocked tonight, thinking that Palin appeared painfully under-qualified/uninformed, but low and behold, the media (on virtually every channel) thought she did really well! Go figure! I mean I wanted her to kick a## more than anyone yet I was disappointed and, like you, could hardly watch in parts.......yet amazingly the media said how great she did. I don’t get it. You’re rig ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I vote for writing it here....no time like the present. I’m curious as to what you’re thinking, as you seem to be an intelligent and wise person.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

well-said.....I wasn’t a big McCain supporter going into this thing but he really impressed me tonight...Smart, informed, experienced, well-spoken. Obama, on the otherhand was just very underwhelming...I can’t even really put my finger on it, but he just had no sparkle. I don’t know if he was tired or what, but there was just nothing there...no great idea, no charisma, nothing at all, just another liberal dancing around direct questions. Anyone who would put this country’s future into the hands of Obama after his performace tonight is crazy.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

awe, drew...don’t hold back, let ’er fly!   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

you’re just a real genius. The fact remains, despite what your flimsy excuse for a brain tells you, that the opposite of selection...that is, the opposite of an external agent for creating fitness, would be an INTERNAL agent for creating fitness. In this case, the agent would be called self-organization. I like to call it mind or intelligence, but it doesn’t really matter what it’s called, as it is an internal mechanism of change not an external mechanism of change (selection), as darwin -- and his minions of today -- propose(d).   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

to the claim: It also knows that self-organization is real, you, corinthian, said: ”No one has claimed otherwise.” Bull. Self-organization is the polar opposite of selection. The creation of the fit EITHER happens via self-organization OR natural selection. Darwin claimed selection creates the fit, non-darwinians claim otherwise...but they both (selection and self-organization) cannot operate and create fitness at the same time. It’s either one or the other. And the fact is, science has supressed self-organization for decades in a desperate attempt to dumb down society as much ...
[retrieve this message]

---

”fossil record that dated back only thousands of years” Dating techniques all rely on assumptions. ”Or perhaps a whole galaxy forming out of nothing since the days of Galileo.” I’m not following that one...so if this happened you’d believe in a young earth? ”Then there is still that pesky issue of the speed of light . .” what about it?...the speed of light would have been multiplied by the rate of space expansion....(light would have been stretched by expanding space)....   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

what would you take as evidence of a young earth?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Hi Drew...the finches are not an example of evolution (even the micro variety) because there is no mutation -- no genetic change. There must be genetic change in order to qualify as ”evolution.” More specifically, there must be a change in alleles.....but there is no such thing here. What is happening is the individual birds are being adapted by their mother’s hormones during development. You can see a similar phenomenon here, (though not with beaks) whereby the mother finch alters her young in interesting ways, including speeding up development: http://www.sciencedaily.com/relea ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I’m still waiting.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

yea I’m used to it...notice there is no attempt at answering the challenge. Of course, there is no answer, as ”evolution,” as defined by the scientific community doesn’t happen on any level or scale. Change happens, evolution, however is a myth.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

sorry, personal insults don’t fly in a scientific discussion...I have challenged you and/or anyone else to present me a case of microevolution -- and thus far no takers. And by the way -- so what if I’m a blabbering fool? Who cares....that does not take away from the lie of evolution. I suggest you start sticking up for this non-scientific pig by using your brain and the given evidence.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

For all of you who have already accepted that microevolution is a reality, just hear me out here.......The theory of evolution, as defined by ToE -- whether micro or marcro -- is a complete fairytale. Read on for the challenge. Charles Darwin, who died over 100 years ago and was ignorant about genes, cells, and basically every biological process, claimed that natural selection (differential breeding success) was the CAUSE of adaptation and evolution....that any variation that arose was just a crazy accident in a single lucky individual and therefore his beloved NS got the credit for pro ...
[retrieve this message]

---

because humans were specially created in the image of God. animals were not. Evolution never happened.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I told you you’d chicken out..... so how did the eye form? Explain it....   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

then explain how evolution happens without mutations creating beneficial novel phenotypic modifications? I need to hear this....but I’m betting you’ll chicken out...not before, of course you grace us with your usual insults/smart comments to coverup your ignorance. C’mmon, prove me right.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

The thing about the axolotl is that it changed phenotypes without changing genotype...there were no mutations. The cause of the change was an exposure to high idodine content in their new environment.....this caused the organism to not progress past the larval stage. However, the interesting thing is the organism was still able to reproduce in this larval stage...which gave the impression that it formed a new ”species.” In reality, the same DNA was just re-expressed to accomodate the new environment.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I would never claim that populations sit around being stable. There are all kinds of mechanisms that allow animals to adjust phenotypically to a changing environment, these are even heritable. For example, the following link on page 2 you will see a flea, who was subjected to predators during development, created a new spine for itself -- this new spine not only is a beneficial novelty generated purposefully from within, but it is also heritable. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover Ultimately, ToE has no random origin of beneficial phenotypic novelty. You claim copying ...
[retrieve this message]

---

yeap, flies have had their wings duplicated by mutation.....but these are merely duplications of already-exisiting structures. A worm could not evolve into a human by way of duplicating already-exisiting structures. You are witnessing the achilles heal of The Theory of Evolution: there is no proven evolutionary mechanism capable of producing selectable, randomly-arising morphological novelty. There are many mechanisms that DO produce novelty, but they have nothing to do with the evolutionary build-up of the genome, which is a requirement for a materialistic molecules-to-man evoluti ...
[retrieve this message]

---

well sure enough, mutations make changes in the genome...my contention, however is that mutations play no role in the evolution of external physical appearance or structure. Mutations can alter physical appearance, but usually in a negative way....very occasionally there is a beneficial mutation to phenotype, but these are rare. Even when they do happen they will always, but always be either a reduction or a duplication of what’s already there. Nothing new is added in the way of evolutionary novelty...therefore evolution from worm to human is impossible by way of mutation, which is the ...
[retrieve this message]

---

crickets....   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part....(one that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way.) There are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death....Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE. Knowing this, it ...
[retrieve this message]

---

yeap...lateral gene transfer -- another mechanism that debunks the metaphysical religion known as Neo-darwinism. Adaptations/gene transfers not going through selection is evidence AGAINST your theory, cori....that’s why horizontal gene transfer was supressed for decades -- the idea that genomes could pass information to each other -- even specific genes -- was so heretical that science wanted no part of it. Now they have no choice.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Here is your statement, ”You don’t “Teach” a cow to be come a whale and his other example is equally bad. The man should have the intellectual honesty to at least study the subject, the idea of “Cow to Whale” is known to be false.” The point is, this common ancestor must have been some sort of ”cow-like” creature. And since evolutionists have never found such a thing, no one knows exactly what evolved into a whale or a bat (assuming, for your sake, something did). This professor was merely going on what evolutionists (like that link I provided you) say.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

You stick your foot in your mouth just about everytime you open it. Please notice the last sentence: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IID2Understanding2.shtml ”Reconstructing the characters of ancestors can be a useful tool. For example, scientists used to think that whales’ ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes.”   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

The reality is evolutionists say the cow, the bat, and the whale share a common ancestor. Evos say the whale evolved from a hooved animal similar to a cow. But since this creature has never been identified (since it doesn’t exist) this guy is merely going on the ”cow-like” mammal that the whale evolved from. Besides, what difference does it make? Ultimately you guys say we all evolved from some bacteria floating on a stinking pond. You don’t know what the whale evolved from, you don’t know what any creature evolved from. You cannot produce any evidence to the contrary. Heck, you c ...
[retrieve this message]

---

For a 3 minute clip this guy does a pretty good job explaining why it is that so many people simply do not believe Darwinian evolution. This is about the evolution of whales: http://www.evolutionnews.org/ What he does forget to mention in his talk was that the changes he’s referring to would have had to arise randomly, which turns a highly improbable sequence of events into a ridiculous absurdity. Where are all the deselected biological mistakes and experiments? 50,000 randomly-arising morphological changes couldn’t all happen right the first time.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

when I say species change in order to be ’stable’ I’m simply saying that they change to help them from becoming extinct. This is not rocket science. And obviously there are no guarantees in life....extinction and death are a fact of life. But hey -- ToE says basically the same thing -- that adaptations help populations survive.....the difference is their mechanism, if true (which it has never been validated) would slowly change creatures over time to kinds of animals that they did not start out being. Hey Corinthian...care to give me an example of a mutation that creates a beneficial ...
[retrieve this message]

---

Society has been tricked. It is just so obvious to me what is going on. What we are witnessing is a coordinated, all-out brainwashing of the masses. Care to know what the biggest hoodwink in all of science is? I’ll tell you: Evolutionists are like magicians....they’re great at illusions and giving the impression that something exists when it doesn’t. In this case, they, along with the help of the original magician, Darwin, have devised very clever sleight-of-hand illusion. This trick is subtle, but has devastating consequences not only for science, but also for the worldview, mindset ...
[retrieve this message]

---

no I haven’t...I keep getting answers like that.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

show me.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

actually ”evolving” is not ”adapting.” ”Evolution,” by definition is random mutations culled by natural selection. By using the word ”evolution” you are implying that there is a valid mechanism that enables creatures to evolve into completely different kinds of creatures. ”Adapting,” however, is not evolution. Adaptations happen all the time...they can happen during development or even later in life. For example, many fish can adapt to changing environments by altering their color or the shape of their bodies. Adaptation, though, is not evolution. ”Evolution,” as defined by science ...
[retrieve this message]

---

Actually, God made us adaptive....being adaptive to changing environments has nothing to do with microorganisms changing over time into humans.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

The debate is going hollywood......this is going to get interesting. I can already envision darwinists foaming at the mouth. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

funny how you say your life is much better now. You sound so absolutely miserable on here. Despite your unbelief in God, you still have no explanation for the origin of anything. You can’t simply say everything just ”happened” for no reason. That is illogical. And even if you do say that, it doesn’t help you with the problem of origins. For example, you have no clue as to how a cell originated. Or the genome of even the simplist creature. Or of any of the billions of compounds in the human body. Corinthian, you are not near as smart as you think you are....which is why you’ve in ...
[retrieve this message]

---

well since you have given me no mechanism whereby new structures are formed, it’s pretty safe to say that God created the animals pretty much as we see them today. The only thing we know for sure is there are less animals on the earth today than there were in the past -- and the only thing the fossil record show is extinction. If evolution were true we should be seeing the appearance of all kinds of new lifeforms. Instead, lifeforms are merely being eliminated. The evidence points only in one direction -- that the earth was created and it’s now in the process of winding down. We can s ...
[retrieve this message]

---

explain to us why your wife beats you up.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

how about you prove that life came from rocks. We know that life only comes from life. Thus, the only plausible explanation is that life came from -- life. It seems to me that attributing life to a hidden source of life makes much more sense than attributing life to a hidden source of non-life. Just because you cannot see, touch, hear or smell this life does not mean it’s not there. Just like when you think a thought. You can’t see, taste, touch or smell that thought, but do deny that it exists?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I have looked it up -- there isn’t any. You’ve got nothin’.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

”Your first sentence is wrong. There are hundreds on the subject.... look them up.” show me.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

What’s funny is, even if mutations created new structures or machinery (which they don’t) it would still take an incredible amount of faith to believe that a complex organ such as a pancreas or an eye or an ear could arise from random mutations. See evolutionists say that mutations are not adaptive and cannot be predicted as to where they happen in the genome. But, there’s a problem with this: there are over 3 billion base pairs in the genome. And for this randomness postulate to be a reality, in order to build a complex organ in a series of steps, mutations would have to occur in the c ...
[retrieve this message]

---

For me the best evidence for creation is creation itself. The complexity of every living organism screams design. A single cell, for example, is far more complex than anything man has ever designed. Each cell contains a genetic code, which contains information roughly the equivalent of 4000 encyclopedia books. It would require about 10,000 human cells to cover the head of a pin, and each human being is composed of more than 75 trillion interacting cells! The idea that this could come about by randomness is just absolutely ridiculous. It is so obvious to me that the universe was set up t ...
[retrieve this message]

---

there is no proof....what I can say is that since random mutations do not create new machinery, (not on the cellular level, not on any level) then there’s no sense in saying ToE is a legitimate explanation for anything. So what you’re left with is special creation. You can run your mouth all you want but you simply cannot get around the very simple fact that your theory has no creator.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Corinthian, why must you keep avoiding my challenge from below? Here it is again: Evolutionary theory is based on mutations plus selection. Natural selection wades through all the raw material produced by mutations and then judges the fitness of this raw material. Beautiful. But wait....not so fast. I would like you to show me how a random mutation can create the raw material that NS is supposed to be selecting: a physical body part or even a cellular structure. ANYTHING. I want to see evidence that random mutations can build new, complex machinery. You need a Creator for your th ...
[retrieve this message]

---

yes??????????????????????   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

the same kook con artists running the Darwinist scam are the same kooks running the medical establishment who tell us the only way to get healthy is to take more drugs. These fools are all in bed together, and man do they make an ugly baby! You’re living proof, corinthian.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Corinthian, don’t play like you didn’t see this.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Here’s a challenge for you, Corinthian: Evolutionary theory is based on mutations plus selection. Natural selection wades through all the raw material produced by mutations and then judges the fitness of this raw material. Beautiful. But wait....not so fast. I would like you to show me how a random mutation can create the raw material that NS is supposed to be selecting: a physical body part or even a cellular structure. ANYTHING. I want to see evidence that random mutations can build new, complex machinery. You need a Creator for your theory, Corinthian -- so let’s see it.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

”The reality is that the work of creationists and id-ists is scientifically worthless.” So the only worthwhile science is one that recognizes that all physical structures, all biological processes, all cellular and genetic machinery arose uncaused, unplanned, randomly, accidentally and for no good reason? How is that science? How could that ever be tested or validated? Did anyone ever tell you, Corinthian, that your religion of ”science” (i.e...”randomness) is full of it?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

sorry, it makes no sense that one group of creatures would evolve from a worm to a human while another group of the same creatures would stay worms. Sorry, it doesn’t pass the common sense test.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

more nonsense. Evolutionists cannot explain the origin of even a single body part. Mutations create no structures. (prove otherwise) Selection creates no structures. (prove otherwise) Why would they assume the worm could evolve a brain from something that didn’t have a brain? And why are some worms still worms while some worms turned into humans? Pure crap.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

If a sea of random mutations were not culled by natural selection then what you would have is a genome full of useless junk -- junk that gets in the way of operations. You’d have organisms that were not particularly efficient in their internal operations. And sure enough, science is learning that the so-called ”junk” DNA is not actually junk at all. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/junk_dna You know why this is, corinthian? It’s because the genome is not made up of an assortment of independently-evolved/randomly-appearing genes, genes that each selfishl ...
[retrieve this message]

---

Now you’re resorting to an evolution that doesn’t involve natural selection. Keep moving the goalposts, corinthian. Neutralists and selectionists have been fighting it out for decades and now you’re siding with the enemy who says natural selection has little or nothing to do with evolution. Someday you’re going to backyourself all the way back into the hole you crawled out of.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

man, that’s something else. sad, really. What does that tell you when you see a government forcing people to believe certain things. It seems to me if something were so true, they wouldn’t have to be militant about it, forcing it down people’s throats. Unfortunately for Germany, the internet is available for anyone who cares to investigage both sides of the issue.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I’d like someone to ask this clown how new physical structures arise...he’s got billions of them to account for, starting with a human cell, which has over a billion different compounds in it -- did they all get there by mutation? (About 10,000 cells can fit on the head of a pin) Maybe, corinthian, you can point me to some of these compound-creating mutations.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

From link: ”This new research suggests that in fact, our gills are still sitting in our throats disguised as our parathyroid glands.” Do you know just how absolutely stupid that sounds? So how exactly did a gill turn into a parathyroid gland? How did it know how to function?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

What’s wrong with you? Are you always this miserable or just here? Does your wife beat you up or what?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

This is otherwise known as Corinthian’s attempt to derail his embarrassing inability to respond to my thread below. Quit changing the subject and hop to it. You have the whole internet and 100 years of ”science” at your disposal; show me how new body parts arise.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

face it, your theory is a worthless piece of non-scientific garbage.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

you are a chicken, plain and simple. Show me how the production of new body parts happen. Your theory says mutation is responsible. So let’s see the evidence.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

how does evolution happen when mutations do not and can not create new body parts? Evolutionists need a mechanism of random change that links new body parts to a vehicle of inheritance. But they don’t have it. Let’s take for example the hypothetical evolution of a millipede. Evolutionists say that this creature evolved from a worm. However, a worm has no legs...(among other things.) Thus some sort of mechanism would have to come along to create all these legs. But mutations don’t add new body parts. What’s needed to add new body parts is a new developmental pathway -- but mutations don’ ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I was not and never have been banned from T-web.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I’m still waiting.... ”so corinthian, do you believe acquired traits can be inherited? If so, how does this fit into ToE? Can you point me to an evolutionist author who explains who it fits into the theory?”   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I’m waiting, corinthian. Show us all how I misreprensted him. It’s all right there in black and white. You have my thread-starter and you have his reply. Show me.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

First of all I do not shop this around on dozens of forums. I debate at Carm and a bit over at 4forums. I stop in here about twice a month. This is typical for those who debate this topic because most forums aren’t active all the time. If you go to any active forum you will run into numerous people who frequent multiple forums. I would like a quote from your book, please. by the way, phenotypic plasticity is not the inheritance of acquired characteristics. You might try addressing my question now.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I told you exactly what the ”profanity” was. There was never any curse words or anything like that. I was simply using her own self-description against her. Your attempt at smearing me isn’t going to work because you just simply seem to have no evidence for foul language....of which I do not use. The other thing is this: the mods at that site are liberal evolutionists and cannot stand me for my position on the issue. Creationists, especially informed ones, often get banned from and/or held to different standards on evolutionist-run sites.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

so corinthian, do you believe acquired traits can be inherited? If so, how does this fit into ToE? Can you point me to an evolutionist author who explains who it fits into the theory?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

there was no profanity there. The person who lied about my position was named ”gaytheist”....she once referred to herself as a ”dyke”....I then simply called her ”gaydyke”. This got deleted. There was no profanity.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

ok...are you going to show me where I said anything remotely what that researcher said I said? I’m waiting. Here was his statement again: ”This will be my one and only post to this message board. It is my research you are falsely using to support you [creationists] arguments. Please do not reference my work in this way in the future.” SS: ok...let’s see: ”Your interpretation of the plastic responses of tadpoles to chemicals produced by predators is false.” SS: I never said that.... ”Much research (not my own, look for research by Robert Denver) has shown that chemicals i ...
[retrieve this message]

---

show me..back up your words with actual content.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Oh brother....that just goes to show how one lie told by an evolutionist can spiral into a series of lies by more evolutionists. I never said what that guy said I said...nor would I have. (He got an email explanation of my opinion by a 3rd party who lied about my position/statements.) I emailed him and challenged him to debate me at another site. I got nothing but silence.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Darwinists insist that evolution occurs as mechanical series of natural events....this includes the evolution of consciousness. They insist that nature gave rise to consciousness by way of random genetic changes and natural selection. Therefore, consciousness depends on nature, not the other way around. But I believe the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: natural, biological events are dependent on consciousness; consciousness directs biological change, not vice versa. Which is what we see here with snails: http://www.pitt.edu/~jthst21/Hoverman.html here with fleas ( ...
[retrieve this message]

---

lol...my thoughts exactly. Corinthian would be on to something if he showed us how a frog evolved from some other kind of animal -- but to evolve into itself? what the?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

and just how exactly is it that a cloned animals refutes what I said, that parts cannot be stacked on top of each other to make an individual? First of all, Dolly wasn’t even a clone: http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4389688-108233,00.html Second of all, only a die-hard genetic nutball determinist could assert that an organism is nothing more than the sum total of its genetic makeup. Every scientist knows that an organism is much more than its genes -- that genes are just the tools the body uses to express itself. Body parts are not translated genes. Dolly was not ...
[retrieve this message]

---

You know why science can’t create life, don’t you? It’s because life cannot be defined or explained by a culmination of small parts. One cannot take a heart and a brain and a spleen and some red blood cells and make a human. Same concept with a bacteria or a virus. Life doesn’t work like this. And that’s how evolutionists have messed up. The changes we see in life are modifications to the whole, not an accumulation of small parts. Thus, an attempt to string a life together by stacking parts on top of each other will always be fruitless.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

It’s funny watching evolutionists, who’ve made a living trying to convince people that ”God didn’t do it,” are now saying ”Aliens did it.” This time it’s none other than E.O. Wilson, one of Neo-darwinism’s biggest voices. This is just another example of evolutionists putting their faith in something that has not one shred of evidence, despite accusing creationists of doing that very thing. http://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew.htm#070510 E.O. Wilson thinks panspermia is likely: ”Some serious biologists – and I count myself among them – have begun to wonder that among the enor ...
[retrieve this message]

---

communist/atheist regimes have murdered over 61 million people over the past 100 years. It’s a survival of the fittest mentality that worships death, greed, and immorality.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

And what point are you trying to make with that little tidbit, exactly? How does that refute my statement -- that the numbers simply aren’t there?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Judy: ”I really don’t understand this idea of the ID people that there ought to be a lot more bones. They are aware that archaeologists do not have xray vision, aren’t they? Or that there are only very limited areas at which digs have taken place? That archaelogists are not at liberty to dig in all the places they think most likely to show hominid activity, for various reasons? I could go on.” My point judy, is that evolutionists often use evidence that doesn’t exist. There have been billions of fossils unearthed. Evolutionists have been digging furiously looking for half-man/half ...
[retrieve this message]

---

so where are all the bones to support this many years worth of human existence? There’s about 250 neanderthal individuals and about 25 homo erectus individuals. And do you really think humans migrate as slowly as 1Km per year? How quick did humans migrate across the U.S. after they got here from Europe? and this statement is quite funny: ”Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.” duh...   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I’m sure there are thousands of services offered to women that are not offered to men. Do you see me trying to sue? No. Life is ”unfair” sometimes. Deal with it.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

well what does this statement mean then? ”No, I would not ever do to my child what someone did to you.” I’m taking that statement as she would never do to her child what someone (my birth mother) did to me (put me up for adoption.)   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

”I’m a huge psychology freak, I’m working on my PhD for clinical. So I’ll tell you right now- No, I would not ever do to my child what someone did to you. But to keep from offending you on an extremely deep level, I’ll keep the reasoning to myself.” please indulge yourself...that’s what this forum is for. Just let it fly. I’d love to know what you’re thinking. How did my birth mother do me an injustice by not aborting me?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

because a ”marriage” -- by definition -- is between a man and a woman. Your question is no different than asking why males cannot conceive children. If you guys want to shack up and play house, that’s legal. If you want to form a ”union,” that’s legal. But wanting to call it a ”marriage” when two people of the same sex get together is a contradiction to the term itself. The only reason homosexuals want to call what they’re doing ”marriage” is so their sexual preferences will seem more legitimate. But homosexuality will never be legitimate. It will always be viewed as freaky whe ...
[retrieve this message]

---

why would you have ruined your child’s life to give birth to your child and then put him/her up for adoption? You think if this little child was alive today he/she would think her life was ruined? I was adopted and I do not know my birth mother....she is my hero though. She was responsible, brave, unselfish and loving. Too bad all women are not that way.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

Yes I do believe man is the superior ”species” and has the absolute right to kill animals for food. But having the ”right” and favoring it are two different things. I personally am a bit repulsed with the whole mass-housing/mass-killing of chickens and turkeys but then again I guess I have the right to eat them or not, just like everyone else does. I don’t see your correlation that since those of us on the right don’t feel it’s right to abort our children should turn around and be against eating animal meat for food.....like I said, it seems more of a contradiction to me that many pr ...
[retrieve this message]

---

sorry, I guess I’m not following you. You seem to be a bit confused. I don’t know where you get the notion that pro-lifers are against killing animals for food. If anything, most pro-lifers would probably be less likely to be concerned about animals because they believe they have been given dominion over animals, as stated in the Bible. I am a Christian and a pro-lifer but I actually do have a soft spot for animals and I don’t think it’s a great practice to slaughter millions of animals. Having said that, I still eat meat. :) ...so I guess I’m kind of hypocritical in this sense. Bu ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I’m actually not a big meat eater at all, but you are assuming pro-lifers equate cows and chickens to humans. We don’t.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I’m not going to tear into Big Medicine here but I think this article is worth posting: ”Treatment may fuel cancer’s spread, study finds” http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0523151220070406 Thu Apr 5, 2007 10:15PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Treating cancer with surgery, chemotherapy or radiation may sometimes cause tumors to spread and U.S. researchers said on Thursday... ... ”The repopulation and progression of tumors after anti-cancer therapy is a well-recognized phenomenon,” the researchers wrote. ”It has been shown to occur following radiotherapy, chem ...
[retrieve this message]

---

lol.....ok...the same thing is stated here. Please notice -- and explain -- the 3rd and 4th paragraphs: ”Monteiro noted that the differences in wing patterns differentiate one species of butterfly from another and are used by males and females to determine with which individuals to mate. They also have been shown to serve an adaptive purpose, as demonstrated by numerous studies focusing on seasonal changes in wing coloration of individuals in a species. For instance, Monteiro said, the darker wing patterns that show up in butterflies that emerge in the spring serve to warm up the ...
[retrieve this message]

---