I just wanted to share it with you basically:
> 1. Evolution the process (which is observable, recordable and
documented and
> not subject to debate about whether it exists),
That is not Evolution by definition...... it is adaptation and
mutation...... adaptation does not make a stranded dog, in the arctic,
to
become a polar bear....... -that- would be evolution..... and as for
mutations, they don't have the ability to make offspring as there is no
other mutation with the exact same make-up and/or they are void of the
capability as it doesn't have actual 'sex cells' and/or they don't live
long
enough to give it a try. If you can point to an instance where a pig
grew
wings and
!transformed! into a bird I'd believe you, no kidding...... but there
is no
such observed, recorded, or documented case of that type of change.
> 2. Evolution the assorted theories as to why and how it happens
(which is
a
> subject of some debate among the knowledgeable as to the exact
details),
There are no 'exact details' as there are no "from the Goo, to the
Sloo, to
You" changes. For that -would- be evolution and not an adaptation or
mutation.
> 4. Evolution the beginning of life (which isn't really evolution but
some of
> the aforementioned people who deny it happens tend to get confused
about
> this).
Perhaps not the 'beginning' of 'life', but do you call chemical
reactions life? If you put baking soda and vinegar together is that life?, but
you would call a dog that barks and breaths alive.
> As mentioned (1) isn't up for debate. The process is well-observed
in nature
> and in the laboratory. Just as one example, the appearance and
spread of
> antibiotic-resistant bacteria is an example of evolution in action.
That instance is an adaptation of bacteria....... now if you could show
me where it grows feet and legs and walks off then I'd be impressed to
believe in evolution....... think of it this way...... you can stash a can of
peanut butter (lota protein) with as much live cells as you want...... but
it's not going to become a baby.... nor anything else.
> Definition 3 is the one that raises the most hackles among those who
believe
> that a book of rules, fables, myths and a small bit of history trumps
all
> other sources of information. Of course if I were cynical I would
point
> out that believing said book over the what they can see and learn
given
> the senses and reason that they believe their Creator gave them is an
utter
> waste. If I were cynical.
Ohh? by definition you are being very cynical.
> Definition 4 doesn't have anything to do with evolution, although the
people
> referenced in my comments on Definition 3 tend to lump that in.
Evolutionary
> theory only deals with what happens to life when it's around, it says
nothing
> about the how and why life is there to begin with.
>
> If I seem rather short and insulting, well, I don't really apologize.
If
> someone wants to take a position that literally denies the reality of
the
> ground beneath their feet, they should be prepared for someone to
call
them
> on it. As a geologist, I'm quite willing to help them understand
that ground
> and what it reveals, but only if they are willing to admit the
possibility
> that some of the things written in a 2000 year old book are wrong.
Denies? I'm not denying anything sir, I'm pointing out that that
'ground' is sand. It is a definite possibility that that 'book' is wrong, quite a
few things are totally wrong, I'm confronting you on cold hard FACTS,
things do not transform in this world we live in! They adapt and mutate, but never has anyone seen or have evidence of an actual evolutionary transformation.
If I'm wrong then put your proof where your Email is.
> (person who wrote the first rebuke to this)
If you want to see these proof for yourself, please!, be my guest and
read
"The Collapse of Evolution" here
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0174.asp
or read a few exurps from it here
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/174/evolvex.asp
If you have any proof to rebuke me go ahead and send it over! It'll be
welcomed and unbiastly read, I hope you do the same.
(Person who wrote all of this), the one who only cares about truth and not stupid arguments.
I hope this wasn't mangled too much in the cut and paste.
