I want to be convinced - an experiment

Well, if by that you mean that nobody should believe in evolution unless they do so because of the evidence, then you're quite correct. Yes, genius, I know what you meant.What I'm telling you is that evolutionists don't see what they want to see - they see what the evidence points to. That's why there's such spectacular - though not total - agreement among scientists about evolution.Like the viewers of the autostereograms, scientists see only what was there but hidden. They're not seeing what they want to see. In fact the greatest scientific discoveries have come from scientists not seeing anything close to what they wanted to see. Boy, if that's all it takes to stymie you, you're not much of a creationist. What, you thought you'd show up and baffle us with your all-caps paragraphs and we'd suddenly see the light? That all you had to do was call us idiots and we'd be convinced to overturn 150 years of biology?Chill out. You're going to have to do 1000 times better if you expect to lead people to creationism. Step one of that is improving your attitude and not jumping down people's throats when they point out the glaring holes in your arguments. Do you think your attitude has impressed people? Do you believe you've acted Christlike? To the contrary, I'm more than willing to accept whatever help and advice folks have for me.But all you've given me is "if you don't believe like me you're an idiot." Is that supposed to make Christianity attractive to me? Is that how you witness Christ's love? Yeah, yeah. I saw all that. I felt all that.But none of it is true. If I could feel the same as you, and have the same experiences as you, and still not be a "true believer", then how can you possibly know that you are? You're so angry you're guaranteed to be a future atheist, if you ask me.

crashfrog, I am not angry I'm frustrated. I just don't understand how others can't see what's right in front of them. That's all. You do make some good points. But let me say that I saw your name out on other sites and you act the same towards them as you did me so I don't think it has as much to do with me as your finger pointing my show. I called you fools by the way not idiots. The "fool" thing is how all this got started at least try to get THAT right. And you are wrong the scientist are the worst at seeing what they want. They don't have an answer they find one no matter what. Smack a label on it and now it's fact. There is NO PROOF of evolution. And the only reason they agree is because they all have the same views for the most part about God.

And another thing the caps thing was not on purpose so quit acting so outa sorts. I just didn't change over.

Maybe because it's not there? Maybe because the more that you study the natural world, especially the world of living things, it begins to look a lot less like something somebody would design, and something that works only well enough?Seriously almost any engineering student could come up with better designs than is usually found in the natural world, especially with God-like powers. The entire living world is a display of un-intelligent design. To the contrary - the field of biology constitutes persons of every faith and no faith. On the other hand, the vast majority of creationists are Protestant Christians.You're right, of course - like any scientific theory, evolution can't be proved. But that's a long way from saying that we can't accept evolution as the most likely explanation because of the evidence. Close your eyes to it, if you must; set up a barrier of impenetrable ignorance if you feel like you have to, but at least, maybe you could stop trying to spread ignorance around?

tushea.....my words exactly stop spreading the ignorance. No intellegent design you speak the opposite of every scholar I have ever heard. Did you ever go to school? You seem knowledgable....what a waste. Look at the eye, how it functions with million and millions of rods and cones, nerves all working together simultaniously just to see. Yeah, all luck. That is a fool!!!!!

Several years of college, and I'll be going back in a year or two. Yeah, look at the eye, with its blind spot and backwards retina.Is that intelligent design to you?

it's "retna" my friend and study the eye to see how it works and get back to me.

Here's a tip, genius. If you're going to correct my spelling, make sure you know how to spell. As a matter of fact, the word is "retina", exactly as I spelled it.Also I see that you are totally unfamilar with the anatomy of the eye; if you were, you would know that the photoreceptive cells (the rods and cones) are located on the back of the retina, under the nerve ganglia and about 8 or 9 layers of tissue. (Don't take my word for it; look it up in Gray's Anatomy.)That's right. The nerves in your retina are actually on top of the rods and cones, and nerves are not transparent. Explain to me the intelligence behind that design, please?(Added by edit: Ok, I may have slammed the door on your fingers pretty hard, there. Nonetheless it's a pretty well-established principle that before you shoot your mouth off correcting someone, make sure you're in the right, first.)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-01-2004]

---

"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." - Emo Philips

You have the audacity to correct spelling? This is a previous post:

quote:

---

tushea.....my words exactly stop spreading the ignorance. No intellegent design you speak the opposite of every scholar I have ever heard. Did you ever go to school? You seem knowledgable....what a waste. Look at the eye, how it functions with million and millions of rods and cones, nerves all working together simultaniously just to see. Yeah, all luck. That is a fool!!!!!

---

Normally I don't like to do this, but you started it. You misspelled "Touch," "intelligent," "knowledgeable," and "simultaneously." These errors are in addition to the retna debacle. If you would like, I can also correct your grammar in that post as well.

Avoid the "converted" word... We'll have to come up with a neologism, but I am sure that word would soon have the same stigma attached to it as "conversion" does. How about "after my choice to become a follower of Christ"? A bit long, I know...And no, I did not reject evolution when accepting Christ and no, that doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. I don't understand literalists, really. Does Josiah really think that St. Peter is gonna tell me that I can't enter through the Pearly Gates because I believed in evolution? I think rather that St. Peter is gonna say to Josiah: "Boy, were you ever wrong in thinking that we meant that story to be taken literally, what happened to your common sense?".
I believe that Jesus is the Christ of God and I intend to come to know Him and more importantly, follow Him and I don't think it matters one bit whether I believe in evolution or not.[This message has been edited by Sarde, 04-01-2004]

Dear Josiah,If you did indeed come here with the intention to lead people to Christ, then I suggest you rethink your modus operandi and change it. It is the likes of you who have made a fool of Christ and God. It is the likes of you who chase people AWAY from God because no sane person wants to submit to a type of religion which requires you to stop using your God-given brain. If it was you I had been e-mailing with over the past few weeks instead of truthlover, I'd be a friggin' atheist by now!Sarde

quote:

---

And until you can put a few animals of the same "kind" in a closed area and watch them for hundreds of years to see if it evolves into a different "kind", then you will never have proof.

---

You have finally given us a testable hypothesis for creationist theory. All we have to do is show the formation of a new kind. Animals of the same kind are considered a group of species that can produce offspring (fertile or infertile). So, all we have to show is a group that was once able to interbreed and then overtime were not able to reproduce. We have observed this, so "kinds" can finally be ascribed to evolutionary mechanisms.From Observed Instances of Speciation:In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.WH WH - 75%
P1 P1 - 95%
P2 P2 - 80%
P1 P2 - 77%
WH P1 - 0%
WH P2 - 0%They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.-----------------These worms were once part of the same population, but are now unable to cross breed. This is the formation of a new kind. The new kind also has differences in its karyotype, or the shape of its chromosomes. There is your proof, a new kind.

Is that what he tried to say?Hell, I though he was calling me "Tushie" or something.