Evolution & Mutation in front of our eyes

He's a biochem Ph.D. Scientist, yes. Geologist, no. Paleontologist, no. So why's he talking about rocks and fossils?

I could get a Muslim priest to talk down the Bible and say "Priest rejects Christianity". Nice try at a sensational headline.

Oh, did I mention that Gower's a young earther? Funny.

A biochemist would be deeply consulted in the area of Evolution. The fact that he just stated some general information that a ten year old could of told you should not upset you so much, unless you have a very thin skin. The fact that the fossil record does not support evolution does not require a Geologist, or a Paleontologist to inform us of that obvious condition.

Mr. Campbell, You have gone to extreme to try to prove your points. While I believe in the teachings of Jesus and have repect for men like Luther and the Wesley brothers, I can PROVE you wrong on all of this stuff you have been aruging in about two or three statements. You claim that the Bible contains no contriductions. Its states in Gensis 32:30 that Jacob saw God face to face. Yet, in John 1;18 it states that no man has never seen God. This disproves the whole Bible and it is so simple that a 10 year old child can understand it. All of your hard work has been in vain. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

So you don't "need" a neurosurgeon to do brain surgery? You can just read what they've said and go with that, right? An eye doctor could do brain surgery, right? They're both doctors.

A Biochem *CREATIONIST* would be doing anything to discredit evolution, especially when they are talking about science way outside of their field.

Keep trying. I enjoy the laughter.

As I have stated before the Biochemest just stated some general information that a 10 year old could of said.

The missing links are still missing. And the fossil record does not support your Theory of Evolution.

There is far more information that supports Biblical truth than any information you could hope to produce to support Evolution. And I'm talking hard evidence, not artistic drawings of what a missing link might look like. And we also know that when the Believers in Evolution see evidence that does not agree with their theory they reject it no matter how strong that evidence may be.

I can say that because we see what happened with the figurines in Mexico, the Rowlands head from Arkansas, ect. ect. ect.

Are said ten year old and said biochem experts in the fields of geology and paleontology? No.

Biochemistry doesn't deal with geology. It doesn't deal with paleontology. If he has something to say about biochemistry, then I'll listen.

A lot of evolution's latest supporting information actually comes from the biochemistry field. They're the ones that are doing genetic referencing and finding the evolutionary lines, supporting what evolution says along with showing us some neat things we didn't expect.

The most interesting thing that I have recently came across is "lateral gene transfer". http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Lateral_gene_lit.shtml That is neat.



Not all "links" are missing. We have quite a few of them. We're not going to be able to produce every living thing that has ever been on this planet... it just won't happen. One or two small missing pieces won't stop us from seeing the whole picture.



Hard evidence? A pot and hammer you've never submitted for scientific review. Bones you C14 date, a method totally inapplicable to it's sample. Figurines found in an amount and quality never heard of for their supposed age (There's enough evidence to cast serious doubt on those).

There is no scientific evidence that refutes evolution. If such evidence existed, Dover would have 'Pandas' on it's library shelves. Seriously, your best "creation science"/ID guys had the chance to put the hammer down, finally shut those crazy evolutionists up.

Yet, the ONLY "hard scientific evidence" your guys could bring up were the "irreducible complexity" argument, and the fact that there's a pair difference between apes/monkeys and humans.

Both were quickly blown to bits, and the evidence used to do so fully supports evolution.

You claim science uses artistic drawings, yet you use clay figurines and cave erosion as hard evidence? I don't get it.



If your "evidence" had real substance, it would be accepted. It does not.

Happy New Year,...Ass, Handed and to ya Mr Campbell.

Sabz are you a particular expert in this field? You have a vast knowledge of this area, I have learnt a hell of alot just reading your posts. Thanks.

The Bible tells us Mr, Campbell. Jacob saw God. It does not say that he saw Jesus or the Holy Ghost. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

Are said ten year old and said biochem experts in the fields of geology and paleontology? No.

Biochemistry doesn't deal with geology. It doesn't deal with paleontology. If he has something to say about biochemistry, then I'll listen.

A lot of evolution's latest supporting information actually comes from the biochemistry field. They're the ones that are doing genetic referencing and finding the evolutionary lines, supporting what evolution says along with showing us some neat things we didn't expect.

The most interesting thing that I have recently came across is "lateral gene transfer". http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Lateral_gene_lit.shtml That is neat.



Not all "links" are missing. We have quite a few of them. We're not going to be able to produce every living thing that has ever been on this planet... it just won't happen. One or two small missing pieces won't stop us from seeing the whole picture.



Hard evidence? A pot and hammer you've never submitted for scientific review. Bones you C14 date, a method totally inapplicable to it's sample. Figurines found in an amount and quality never heard of for their supposed age (There's enough evidence to cast serious doubt on those).

There is no scientific evidence that refutes evolution. If such evidence existed, Dover would have 'Pandas' on it's library shelves. Seriously, your best "creation science"/ID guys had the chance to put the hammer down, finally shut those crazy evolutionists up.

Yet, the ONLY "hard scientific evidence" your guys could bring up were the "irreducible complexity" argument, and the fact that there's a pair difference between apes/monkeys and humans.

Both were quickly blown to bits, and the evidence used to do so fully supports evolution.

You claim science uses artistic drawings, yet you use clay figurines and cave erosion as hard evidence? I don't get it.



If your "evidence" had real substance, it would be accepted. It does not.

The artistic drawings are based on the imaginations of the believers of evolution, their drawings are not based on any evidence that can be seen, but are based on what they believe. The figurines from Mexico match many of the assembeled dinosaurs we can see in museums today. What is there not to get?

And heres some hard evidence for you. If the Theory of Evolution is true. Why have they found human skeletal remains in ancient strats such as the remains they have found in Guadeloupe, or the fossilized human skeletons discovered in a Utah copper mine. The remains have been in strata that is believed to be 100 million years old.

Unfortunatly, the universiety scientest must of been just to busy, so they never did get around to age-dating those bones.

This is the kind science that makes me sick. Real evidence in their hands, and they ignore it. Don't even try to tell me about the honesty of Evolution.
This is nothing but more cover up. Why aren't all your Evolution buddies rushing to get those bones dated? Oh yeah that's right, it just might throw a wrench in to that fine working machine called Evolution. Yeah, and who is going to be that brave scientist that will finally reveal to the American people, that for the last 100 years they have been teaching crap to the American school children?

Ancient Human Skeletons

All your links are missing and the one's you claim that are found you could only believe by looking at artistic drawings. You people still don't get it. There should be an equal number of fossils showing your supposed transionals as there are showing the obvious fossils that we can clearly identify. This is not the case and never has been.

USA TODAY
Editorial/Opinion
D. Chris Buttars
8/8/2005

The trouble with the missing link is that it is still missing! In fact the whole fossil chain that could link ape to man is also missing! The Theory of Evolution which states that man evoloved from some other species, has more holes in it than a crocheted bathtub. I realize that it is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man.

You see Numpty, in order for you to really believe in Evolution it requires almost a religous type of faith, because there is no real evidence that can
be pointed to.

There is one thing that can be said about creationists and that is they never give up. Not even when I showed Mr. Campbell a contridiction in the Bible that can not be disputed, he and his breathren fail to reconize that there are about 20 references in the Bible to the Earth being flat, and that over 99 percent of scientists believe in evolution. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

The funny part Num is that there is TONS of scientific evidence linking man to primates, almost all of it organic!

Prime example? Chromosome 2. In this case, either the creationist's belief that there is no link between man and primate is wrong *OR* the creationist's belief that mutation cannot add information is wrong.

DNA evidence shows links between Neanderthal and modern man. These links are through common ancestry, not DIRECT ancestry. Neand's were nether our ancestor nor our successor. Yet there is quite a bit of relation between us.

The "missing link" hooplah is a creationist thing only. There is NO "missing link". Evolution does not stop. Everything is a transitional.

Example: The scarlet robin.

Evidence: DIRECTLY OBSERVED NATURAL SPECIATION.

This species has come into existence within the last century. Therefore it's original species, even though it still exists, is a transitional. If it separates into other species, it itself is a transitional.

When you hear the words "missing link", you can bet there's a Bible behind it.

Numpty TODAY
Editorial/ Opinion
5/1/2008 (we do it differnt to you)

The trouble with the missing creation link is that it is still missing! In fact the whole creation chain that could link God to man is also missing! The Theory of creation which states that man was made by God, has more holes in it than a crocheted bathtub. I realize that it is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific evidence that demonstrates organic Creation linkage between God and man.

That clear it up for you Mr Campbell?

If these people actually saw dinosaurs, there would be much more evidence than a few shoddy figurines. There would be evidence that nobody could refute... say... piles and piles of dinosaur remains in that location, items made from dinosaur bones, written history, the whole nine.

Funny how the ONLY thing shown are these figurines for something that would have definitely been documented fully.




Links to both, please.

So NOW the strata is accurate? When something is found out of place, the strata... which you have discounted heavily... is now accurate?




Conspiracy. Theory.



Why don't you get the iron pot and hammer dated? Worried that'd throw a wrench in your creationist beliefs? Why aren't things coming out of the creationist camp peer reviewed? Oh wait... when we do check your findings, they wind up being totally wrong. How many of your links have I refuted? All of them? Wow, funny that.

The kind of science that makes you sick is real science. Science that doesn't say "God is right".

We did reveal the teaching of crap to American schoolchildren. So we took creation out of the science class. Because guess what... it isn't science.

You can't prove creationism. All you throw up here are questionable references and "evidence" that falls apart the instant any real science is put towards it. Nothing you have put forth proves creationism. The ONLY thing you have tried to do is disprove evolution, and at that you have failed miserably. All this work and effort trying to disprove a belief because you KNOW you cannot prove yours. You can't. It's that simple. Rocks and fake figurines don't prove a supernatural being, no matter how hard you try. All this "evidence" is geared at doing one thing: casting doubt on evolution. That's the only thing you can do. Trying to prove creationism is futile at best, with every question being dodged. For example: Show the existence of God. Can't do that, can you? You can't even bring forth one shred of evidence that DIRECTLY points to a supernatural existence.

I have put forth mountains of evidence SUPPORTING MY VIEW. Scientific findings, theory validation, mathematical formulas, observed instances, the list goes on. I'd like to see you refute all of this. Really, I would.




Oh look, another creationist link. No science links?

However for humor...

"Guadeloupe Man: W. Cooper claimed in 1983 that a modern skeleton found on Guadeloupe in 1812 had been dated at 25 million years old, in the Miocene period. The excellent condition of the skeleton, and the fact that it had originally been found with other skeletons (all pointing in the same direction) along with a dog and some implements, indicate that it was a recent burial. In addition, it has never been claimed to be from Miocene deposits by anyone except Cooper. (Howgate and Lewis 1984)"

"Moab Man: two green-stained partial skeletons were found in 1971 near Moab in Utah. Creationists have claimed that they were found in a Mesozoic (over 65 million years old) rock formation, but testimony from the anthropologist who helped excavate them shows that they were in loose sand, and partly decayed and not at all fossilized. He thought that they were probably Indian bones of recent origin. The skeletons were later bought by creationist Carl Baugh, who named them as a new species, Humanus Bauanthropus (Strahler 1987). A recent comprehensive article on the Moab Man skeletons (Coulam and Schroedl 1995) convincingly demonstrates that the skeletons are most probably the remains of prehistoric azurite miners who were buried in the formation, either deliberately or as a result of a mining accident. (See also Glen Kuban's article on Moab Man)"

Wow, that was easy. Solid evidence? Funny.