Rainbow Dash

Can you be more specific. What arguments did I misinterpret and what are the correct interpretations and what did I not correctly interpret from them? Can you explain how the DNA tests are being misinterpreted?

All You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means ProfessionalTeabagger,I am going to wait for someone else to respond who is hopefully more open minded.

Not all evolutionists correctly adhere to the scientific method. Not all non-evolutionists are theists, I am an example. I never said non-evolutionists didn't consider rabbits in the precambrian contradictory to evolution, it just would also contradict how animals can't live when there are no plants, which is why they would be expected that to not be discovered. Your link references a source from 2006. It is outdated. Much more accurate DNA tests have been done since then.

The link says they ignored the possibility of hydrocephaly, even though the video clearly explains why its deformities can't be explained by hydrocephaly

When I stated that your example would also be predicted by a non-evolutionist, did it not occur to you that an example that would not also be predicted by non-evolutionists would help your claim? I am sorry if that wasn't obvious. Ok, sure the answer was met. But it is still relevant that the example doesn't do a good job at supporting evolution. And for your link, it is obvious that you have not watched the video I posted on the Starchild skull.

This debate would be more productive if you tried to make a convincing argument instead of finding ways to answer the question while dodging the issue. Then can you elaborate how that still supports evolution?

The Starchild skull is not human! Stop being ignorant and watch this video: You are assuming that if there are aliens, then life originated separately on two different planets without considering the possibility that life started somewhere else and they spread life here.

Are you aware that several astronauts claim to have seen UFO's. Aliens are not being evasive. I was stating that they are believed to be going towards being blind. Evolutionists believe they evolved from other mammals, which usually have better vision. I heard this claim used as an example of this theory a long time ago and may be outdated, but that doesn't change the concept. As for the simple google search, you need to be careful what sources you trust. I look at sources for both sides and choose the side that makes better reasoning, not just trust the first claims I find on a quick google search. Edit: have you even ever done a google search for evidence for extraterrestrials? Can you explain where and how I am using straw man arguments?

You can't just claim that someone can't recognize geological layers just because they don't believe in evolution. If evolutionists and non-evolutionists both predict that rabbits won't appear in the precambrian, then you can't say that not finding rabbits in the precambrian is evidence for evolution. There are 2 parts of evolution, mutations and natural selection. if a feature gives an evolutionary neutral advantage, natural selection doesn't affect it because any changes won't affect the ability to survive or reproduce. Without natural selection increasing certain mutations and eliminating others, it will accumulate all sorts of mutations uniformly. A majority of those mutations are harmful to that feature so that feature will degrade over time. One example is that bats are thought to have obtained bad eye site because they started relying on radar instead of eyes causing them to go (Edit: towards becoming) blind over several generations. I am not saying these videos are proof of UFO's, I was just rebutting the claim that if there were aliens they would have to make themselves invisible. I am just stating under the assumption there are aliens, they could just be some of those UFO's in some of those videos and would not need to make themselves invisible. What's wrong with discussing the Starchild skull?

The Wikipedia article on the Starchild Skull is extremely biased. This discredits Wikipedia's article: This is a video I found showing UFO's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNj9mbQztHI I don't know if this could have been faked, but videos like this exist. Do you have reasons why these couldn't be UFO's? Yes I know that many people consider this strange, but I don't see why people should think it is strange. Can you rephrase your post? I don't follow your argument. What does, “things that appear to be functions actually are functions” mean? What does it mean for a description to be “as-if”? What do you mean by function and feature and how do creation myths confuse them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4

Evolution also pushes back the explanation of the origin of life by not explaining how the first living cell came to life. You shouldn't reject a hypothesis only because it doesn't explain everything. Also maybe evolution occurred on a different planet, I just don't see evidence that evolution explains life on Earth. Think of the technological advancement we have had in the last 100 years. Extrapolate that to millions of years and that is how advanced they can be. With this much technological advancements, most things would probably become possible. They wouldn't have to plant false evidence. They started creating simple life then over time they created more and more complex life as they got better at creating life. They reuse common DNA sequences for different organisms because it is more efficient that way. This explains the fossil record and similar DNA. They wouldn't have to go out of their way to make evolution convincing. Observable evidence is perfectly explained without evolution, but people can't see this because they only look at things from an evolutionary viewpoint. People claim to have seen UFO's and others just assume they are either lying or crazy. There are videos of what appears to be UFO's and others just assume they are fake. I have not done much research into UFO's, but I think it is definitely possible that some of these claims are true. Unless you have evidence that all major UFO sittings are fake, for all you know the aliens could be responsible for the UFO's and that they wouldn't have to make themselves invisible. http://starchildproject.com/the-project/skullbasics

Just because a theory explains an observation, doesn't mean that theory is correct. The theory that the sun revolves around the Earth can explain why the sun rises and sets each day, but that theory is not correct. Not only do you need to explain why observations can be explained by evolution, you need to explain why evolution better explains observations better than being designed by extra-terrestrials. If you know of any sources that explain why evolution is more logical than being genetically engineered by extra-terrestrials, I would love to see it. A Precambrian rabbit would also be illogical from a non-evolutionist's perspective. Since plants started appearing after the Precambrian era, how could a rabbit exist when plants for it to eat have not existed yet? If the only thing that could disprove evolution is also something that would not be expected to occur if evolution was false, then that is not a good example of how evolution is falsifiable.

An alternative theory that is growing in popularity that I agree with is that life on Earth was designed by extra-terrestrials. What evidence do you have that plants that have those toxins now did not have those toxins in the past? We can show an object has all the characteristics of having mass which would give an account of mass. It would be possible to give an account of evolution, if evolution is true, by waiting millions of years and watching species change into other species with more complex features. Christian fundamentalists won't pay for a disproof of evolution from someone who believes in aliens and not in God, which are those who make the better arguments. People are not willing to pay lots of money to someone to prove we were genetically engineered by extra-terrestrials as opposed to evolving. Also, talking about what could disprove evolution, what specific discovery(s) would have to be made to convince you that evolution could not have happened?

If evolution was somehow proven false, all evolutionary scientists would lose their job. Thus they have a strong extrinsic motivation to not disprove evolution. You may think even though most scientists don't want evolution to be disproved, the one who disproves it would be famous, and would have extrinsic motivation to disprove evolution. The problem with that is that if a scientist writes a paper disproving evolution, none of the other scientists will peer review it because that may result in them losing their job. Also if an evolutionary scientist doesn't believe in evolution, he will lose his funding, thus scientists who don't believe in evolution have a strong extrinsic motivation to say they believe in evolution whether they do or don't. So logically, it can be assumed that evolutionary scientists are biased. Mathematics can describe the real world; if you have 5 apples and give away 3 apples, mathematics states that in this real world scenario, you would then have 2 apples.

greekredemption,You are assuming evolution from a common descent is true when stating everything is transitional. When arguing something is true you can't assume it is true. When you compare dogs and humans, you assume they share a common ancestor and that any observed differences between them had to have resulted from evolution. Again, don't assume what you are trying to prove. Please try to give me evidence for evolution that doesn't first assume evolution is true.

That article uses an inconsistently applied definition of species. As I already mentioned in my first post, species aren't only defined by whether or not organisms can reproduce with each other, a notable example being polar bears and grizzly bears being able to reproduce and create fertile offspring. "Scientists" pick and choose when to use which definition of species depending on what conveniences them. They define species by whether or not 2 groups can breed only to show speciation which they wouldn't be able to show using another definition of species like sharing a certain amount of DNA, but abandon that definition whenever they don't want it to apply it, like for polar bears and grizzly bears. This kind of picking and choosing is not science.

I made an informative post about reasons against evolution on the previous page and I was wondering why no one has responded to it.

The Tiktaalik reminds me of the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth is a fish that was once thought to be a transitional fossil between fish and land animals. It has since been discovered that the Coelacanth is not a transitional fossil, and it continues to live today, even though it was believed to be extinct for 70 million years. Another example of a false evolutionary claim is the Neanderthal. Scientists claimed humans evolved from Neanderthals, but we now know that is not true. Evolutionary scientists have proven to not be credible, so I am skeptical that the Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil. Although species are often classified by whether or not they can reproduce, sometimes this does not work. One example is Polar bears and Grizzly bears. It has been discovered that they can reproduce with each other and their offspring can reproduce, but grizzly bears and polar bears and classified as different species. Another example is that it is believed that humans and Neanderthals reproduced with each other, but we are classified as different species. The difficulty of defining the term species is referred to as the “species problem”. Another popular way of classifying species is by DNA. All humans share 99.9 percent of DNA. If an organism has 99.9 percent human DNA it is human, if its DNA Differs by a certain amount, then it is not human. So saying that group A can't breed with group B doesn't prove speciation. As for the Richard Dawkins evolution of the eye video, a problem I found is that an eye improving to better observe its surrounding is useless without a brain that can gather valuable information from the improved observation of the eye. The brain being able to make sense of higher quality observation is useless if the eye can't observe in a higher quality. If the eye mutates to learn to detect the location where light is coming from, and the brain doesn't make the connection with the location of light means the location of an object, it gives an evolutionary neutral advantage. If a feature gives an evolutionary neutral advantage, the feature will go away over several generations because mutations that degrade outnumber the mutations that improve. The eye's observation skills can't evolve without the brain's ability to gather information from an image evolving first, and the brains ability to gather information from an image can't evolve without the eye's observation skills evolving first.