Did y’all know that the earth’s rotation is getting slightly slower every year or so? And that if you calculate this to go back just a couple of million years then the Earth would be rotating so fast that nothing could survive? Funny that that fits in perfectly for the timetable set by the Bible. Also that the moon is getting slightly further away every other year? And if you calculate that back to the same time as the first one then the moon would have been extremely close. I hope you can figure out what that would mean for gravitational pulls and really tall animals. If not post me and I’ll explain it to you. So as you can see the Earth is NOT billions of years old, it’s not even millions of years old.
and if you calculate back the current rate of extinction to a couple million years back there would be so many different species on earth you wouldn’t have enough room on earth to fit them all
your argumants are rather funny inkey, but your understanding of science lacks depth 
I’m not sure where to begin…
First, who let the guppy into the shark tank…
Anyway, THANK YOU
You’re pointing out to all us poor uninformed people why evolution is only just a theory? Lucky for us you showed up, or we would still all believe that a scientific theory can never become a ‘law’ or a ‘fact’ believing it to ludicrous according to the definitions set by the scientific community. Thank you for letting us know that a theory can , in fact…become a fact. Very enlightening. Thank you for letting us all know that a theory is actually a stage of development that leads to a fact, and thusly is not to be taken seriously.
Thank You for sharing your obviously well studied and well formed opinions with us.
Ok, who out there can explain Inkeybo1116’s claim about the rotation of the Earth?
It sounds wrong right from the door. Any thoughts?
Why refute an unsubstanciated claim? It isn’t as if he provided us with any reason to take those claims seriously…
True. It sounds fishy. It’s too neat.
Generally dumb stuff that I couldn’t believe that I was reading.
yea… earth’s movements are very complex and they tend to fluctuate strongly over time
the current (change of) movement is not by far representative for what happens in a million years
that’s the point i tried to get across with the silly example of the species number
and… yea… what he said ^^
Yeah, I thought so. There a wobble and whatnot that has affected climate over the years.
At least we just have silly religious people in this country.
I just love how well informed y’all sound as well. Not that y’all really do, to me y’all just sound like a bunch of blowhards that get a kick out of trying to demoralize a freshmen (high school) girl. Wow. I am so impressed. (Notice the emphasis on trying, it means that it hasn’t worked thus far.)
And Adlerian, when science is CORRECT it should sound neat, otherwise what is the point? You WANT to carry a theory into a fact so that it is neat and concise. And to me y’all sound extremely dumb, so it’s not like it’s a one-way street.
The recognition of intelligence itself requires intelligence.
'Nuff said.
Who’s the intelligence here then? 
I don’t see how being a UNIX admin qualifies you any more than I. So far y’all are responding a lot more childishly than I expected; I thought that as a adults you wouldn’t feel the overpowering need for name calling.
I haven’t called you anything, as your ‘name calling’ accusation would sugest.
I have merely sugested you don’t have a clue as to the subject matter you are discussing. What you have thus far displayed contains many glaring holes and misconceptions, and in fact is mostly straight up disinformation.In addition, you seem completely unwilling to consider anything that doesn’t support what you already believe.
I am left wondering why you are even posting at all.
If your intention is to convince us of intelligent design, I sugest you change your methods. Rhetoric and frozen preconceptions aren’t very effective in such a regard, and in fact are just plain annoying.
Interesting forum, this. I gave a cursory glance to your site here, talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html and am sure it will provide interesting reading in the future, as well. I also looked at the site you are critiquing and the post you made thereafter in regards to ‘wildly out of context quotations’. I don’t see where these misquotes or your site significantly contradict many of the points it makes to any substantial degree.
You can look at the differences and similarities in families, or for that matter, dogs or hybrid plants, to prove that ‘evolution’ exists. You can diligently study and try to plumb the depths of the mechanisms involved. But let me know when this natural phenomenon makes a plant out of a human and I will be sold on your theory. Until then, it appears to me to be a pretty devout attempt by it’s devotees to almost literally make mountains out of molehills, or humans out of bacteria. You get the idea, I am sure.
inkey and light, does either of you know how science works?
First of all it’s “do either of you” not “does”. Sorry, bad grammer like that grates on my nerves. If we don’t know anything, then why don’t you try to explain to us?
On another note, here’s something that might interest y’all, and y’all can discredit it or whatever I don’t care, but here it is
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Believe what you want to believe, as long as you allow me the same right.
I got all of 4 sentances in to that read before I realized it was complete crap.
Absolutely incorrect. Evolution doesn’t assume how life originated. Evolution deals strictly with adaptation.
Seriously chickypoo, you should try reading some credible information from credible sources. Major university sites are a good place to look. I’ll help
ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html
cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Evolution.html
nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/
bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu … heory.html
Read, Learn, Understand.
i thought i was asking a rather straightforward question… i suppose it was too hard to answer with a simple yes or no
how’s yer dutch?
Not particularly. I just made the comment that it didn’t appear that the article had been contradicted in any significant fashion. Why do you ask?
Well, it’s gratifying to see at least one person reads what I post up. With regard to the article, the fact of the matter is that it’s beyond the scope of the time I’m willing to put in to check every factual claim made in that article, just as I don’t imagine you’ll subject the TalkOrigins article to point-by-point analysis. Instead I decided to see if the article stood up as a scientific document- well referenced (not just many references, but reputable and contextually appropriate references) and internally cohesive. It survived the latter as far as I could tell, but as I noted, the referencing is pretty unimpressive.
The point that ruined the article for me was when the writer quoted Dawkins and suggested that Dawkins himself thought evolution unlikely. I’ve read the publication in question, and the passage quoted is Dawkins discussing the weak anthropic principle and the absolute worst-case scenario for evolutionary probability. This passage is characterised as typical of Dawkins’ views. What legitimate scholar would make such an egregious misquotation?
I don’t beleive you’ve attempted to understand evolution on the terms in which it is put forward by it’s proponents. By your standards of evidence I might as easily require you to show me the earth reducing itself to a black hole before I’ll beleive in gravity.
If evolution were to make a plant of a human, you wouldn’t be the only one scrambling to change his ideas.