You need to site your source http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7272

But since you are not going to say anything unique why should I.

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html

3) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

4) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

5) 6) 7) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

8 ) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html

9) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC

10) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG041.html

11) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG040.html

What, afraid? I haven't seen you guys debating with me yet?

Well I understand, it's okay. Anybody else? 

I beg your pardon? I distinctly remember utterly rending you asunder in the previous thread you began. You copied and pasted articles from other people, since you yourself have no scientific expertise. Whereas I responded with my own writings. Yet you never returned once to that thread. Hence, you cannot possibly expect people to take you seriously if you give them a precedant whereby you

a) Copy and paste from other sources since you do not have the intellectual capacity to engage in genuine study on the matter

b) Do not return when said arguments are refuted because you cannot respond to said refutations because you do not have the expertise because you are an intellectual pygmy.

how can you possibly expect people to bother to engage in discourse with you if you front this attitude?

The first half relies entirely on the fallacy of bifurcation, or the false dichotomy. Try to poke as many holes as you like in the current scientific consensus on the age of the universe, the origins of life, or whether Hovind's frequent soap dropping can be called 'accidental' anymore, but it doesn't leave the most plausible answer whatever you want it to be. You pinheads have had centuries of nipping at science's heels, and your hypothesis, that everything was created by an overweening omnipotent agency, still has to be argued into plausibility. If you had evidence, you wouldn't have to argue against evolutionary theory, you wouldn't have to play logic games.

The second half... just look up Ken Miller on YouTube. He's a Catholic, and even he can't stand you creationist twerps.

I noticed you guys, instead of giving me a point-by-point debate on why I am saying "false" statements, you attacked the fact it was a copy/paste, too uncomfortable?

Also, you used things like:

"What is there to argue, we have already disproven this!"

REALLY? were? I would love to see.....

Then again, maybe I am wasting my time with arrogant fools..... 

Well, yet again, another one not arguing my point.

Bobby Fischer or some chess-master once said this:

"Play the board not the man"

 Revisse that statement, to:

 "debate the evidence not the source"

or can you?

And again, since I am a Christian, and know there is a God, and you are not, I am therefore the one the lives correctly (most of the time) there fore I am the one we should trust, not a atheist with not laws. Shall we? Any arguement?

Thanks, and you might noticed "bursts" of replies from me, because I have this thing called a "life" and a "job" so I don't spend all my time on foolish websites (like I am  right now) you might see me again soon. My question is, (other than the donations from RRS members) how does Brian Sapient support himself??!?!?!?!

 Does he even have a job? Who knows, who cares.I don't for al I care he could go scrub toilets for the rest of his life and I wouldn't feel sorry!

IMO anyway.

That is amazing man, 6? "you are almost certaintly lying" no lol, just joking I beieve you, but my question is, where did you go so wrong? lol, seeya probably next week, time to go to bed righ tnow. 

Which was?

OK, irrelevant. Your arguments failed on their own, apart from your poor character, sour odor and hot dog neck.

Really? Why don't you hit us with something good then, rather than a false dichotomy and argument from ignorance, you copied and pasted from some pre-fab apologetics site?

LOL, wut?

Did your oddly specific references to bricklaying betray you?

You can't have it both ways.

He issues spankings to your pastor.

You don't care, in your opinion? You're unsure what you think?

Who the hell are you talking to?!

No idiot, it's not uncomfortable... it's stupid.

 We all know how to use google.  We all know that there are thousands of sites that have plenty of information from the Christian side of this debate, we are all capable of looking them up ourselves.  If we wanted copyright laws broken and to be plagiarizers we could go to all of those sites, and steal all of their material too and post it here for us to laugh at.  

If we allowed everyone to simply cut and paste their favorite arguments from any christian site they wanted you could be posting here with nothing but other people arguments for the rest of your life.

What we want is for you to present arguments that you can actually discuss with people.  You seem to be illustrating that you are a parrot.  You can copy others but don't know how to address the issue yourself.  If you think the site(s) you reference are the best of the best, than do yourself a favor, write to the owner of the site and tell them to come over here and have a discussion with us.  

Present ideas that you are able to address without having to copy someone elses arguments verbatim.

Go ahead... get the owners of all the sites you like to come over here, we'll show you how uncomfortable we are when they get here.

If you cared so much about wasting time with arrogant fools you would've never posted the drivel you opened up with.
 

Very well, I shall put my anger on hold for the moment. This irritance springs primarily from the actions of the poster pertaining to the prior thread, but I shall forget about that. The prior thread, like this one, was a prefabricated list of arguments, which fortunately, I had written a set of responses to. To be fair, some of the responses were utter overkill and served more educational purposes than actual rebuttal purposes. There is similar merit in answering the objections in this thread in the same fashion. Some of the claims made by the OP list in this thread are obviously false. For example, it does not require massive expertise in Astrochemistry to know that the claim that comets need to be the same age as the Solar System is a non sequitur. Comets are pulled into the solar system via the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt. Solar Systems do not have "supplies" of comets which can be said to be "used up".

Other claims, such as the decay of the magnetic field, require a lot of technical expertise to even understand let alone refute. Fortunately, I am in possession of such expertise and am therefore preparing a series of physics lectures in which the topic of magnetic fields is very thoroughly treated. My writing on that subject in particular for educational purposes is extensive and goes beyond the Jifemko equations and the Lorentz Law. However, this demonstrates a key issue pertaining to the debate: In order to even begin to have discourse on these matters, a vast amount of background knowledge is necessary. Most creationists do not possess this background knowledge and therefore do not have the capacity to make an informed decision on the matter. Creation "science" arguments are generally aimed at the average person who is not technically trained in the matters at hand, and indeed, Creationism in general is more concerned with appealling to those without technical training in the fields which are necessary to understanding evolutionary theory. 

In order to properly understand the merits of evolutionary theory, it is probably best to be familiar with more or less every single disciple in biology, since evolution is the Unifying Theory of Biology and therefore unifies all distinct fields. However, to be familiar with all these fields is untentable. Therefore, my suggestion is that a core set of four fields is absolutely necessary to comprehend evolution. Those four fields are molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics and evolutionary biology. I suggest that our interlocutor hence research these topics from textbooks and following that, science journals and published papers. 

On the other hand, I am happy to educate. My interlocutor claimed he could not access his previous thread. I accused him of lying. But I am reasonable. Perhaps he was not lying. Hence I shall rescind my statement. Indeed, to be even more fair, I shall re-post my response to the arguments that he pasted, in this thread, so that discourse on both matters can be opened simultaneously, and that our interlocutor and all others in the room can be offered some proper education in these matters.

Hence:

An introduction to what evolution is is first necessary.

Evolution is the process of environmental non-random selection of random fluctuations in biological replicators, a strive to adapt the genes to the environment by which variations are propogated. Every organism in existence has had a direct lineage to a common ancestor, the mutations of whose offspring have produced life’s diversity.

The etymological roots of evolution come from evolvres, in Latin, meaning "to roll out". Today, it simply means change. Presumably, you are referring to biological evolution, also called organic evolution. Evolution in this sense refers to the change in frequency of genes down a lineage. Evolution is not concerned with ontogeny, the development of an individual organism. Organisms do not evolve by themselves. What is occuring is descent with modification, where the variations in any population have selective pressure against them, pressure which is dictated by the environment, which results in the alteration of gene frequencies through a lineage. In this regard, evolution is determinstic, in that the process is not guided by luck or chance.

Evolution is essentially this. Systems of biological life by definition replicate and passes on hereditary information to their progeny. But the progeny never posess a carbon copy of the genetic information which conceived them, rather, there are variations in a population without which we would all still be single celled organisms. These variations produce different organisms with different traits, these different traits may provide advantage and disadvantage in the struggle for resources upon which life is based, as a result, organisms with advantegous traits for the environment may reproduce more hence the advantageous trait flourishes and multiplies at the expense of the weaker organisms, which perish as they cannot match up in the struggle for resources. As time goes on, the variability accumulates and hence marked changes in phenotype and morphology may be observed to the repeated cumulative effect of the advantage of the variation in question causing those possessing it to have more offspring, as a result, the variation becomes more prominent in the pool of organisms until it is a dominant feature of the organism.

Therefore, organisms, by means of reproduction and the variation produced in gene pool, generate variability which accumulates by means of increased prominence in the pool due to the reproductive advantage it offers. The vast array of different advantages by which an organism may elevate itself and hence its offspring in the struggle for resources is so utterly vast that a literal infinitude of possible different phenotypic traits and hence a vast number of distinct phylogenies may proliferate. This is the principle of natural selection, that favorable traits are propagated simply because the organism in question will have an increased chance of survival and reproduction.

The next section therefore concerns a basic course in molecular evolution. Life began humble and meagre, nothing more then a flexible bag of fluid enclosing some precious molecules encoding self-replicating information. And yet, in that time, life has grown to all the fantastic variety and complexity we see around us. Through endless duplication, mutation and selection, life has ultimately diverged into countless distinct branches. This is the molecular biology behind evolution. As a result of this, all life is homologous, which is to say that there is a lineage relationship between all organisms that diverges as the time between the development of the organisms being compared increases, and converges as this time length decreases. This is embodied in the biochemical and anatomical similarities which underlie all life, beginning from those gene families in the table upon which every known organism is based, from that base of operations, the process of evolution, using that foundation, may spring forth and diverge along different phylogenies. The result is that phylogenic trees linking organisms and their constituents (genes and proteins) may be drawn for any cataloged relationship. Indeed, I provided some in my proteomics essay, which I direct the reader to for a much more technical account of molecular evolution. Using the outlined techniques, we can track macroevolution, which is to say that we can track large-scale speciation and common descent despite having not observed it. The duplicative mechanisms for creating the raw material for all homologies from the molecular to the anatomical and physiological level that encompass the whole spectrum of life are so obvious when we examine arrayed and compared genomes that we have a very accurate picture, more so than can be delivered by the rare event of fossilization. These mutations leave very distinct signs which leave it obvious to anyone who observe them that the homology is the result of common descent, not common design.

It is now time to consider molecular mechanisms associated.  It is first necessary to consider a basic fact about DNA. 

The claim “DNA is a language” is probably the result of pop-science, which tries to reduce concepts to simple single words or phrases. That’s how the myth “you only use ten percent of your brain” started (Complete nonsense. The confusion arises because only 10% of brain cells are neuronal, the rest are glial cells like oligodendrocytes and astrocytes). It is also how the Second Law of thermodynamics became reduced to “everything progresses towards disorder” with the result that many creationists are confused about thermodynamics, and labour under the delusion that entropy can never decrease in a system. Nonsense, again. But it does reveal troubling ignorance about science, a few names, some general concepts, that’s it. The claim “DNA is a language” is a meaningless allusion, even if construed as metaphorical. DNA is no more a language than a telephone book is a computer. DNA is a cipher, that is to say that it is a direct substitution representation of the sequential structure of another unbranched polymer, polypeptide (some DNA, however, codes for RNA genes), constructed of a different monomer class, amino acids. The order of the amino acids will determine the structure and function of the final product for which the DNA codes, the protein. In this regard, DNA does not function, even analogously, as a language, it is a substitution cipher. A substitution cipher is one in which one set of functional expressions is replaced with another. For example:

A=1

B=2

C=3

D=4

E=5

F=6

Etc

If I transcribed this to write: 85(12)(12)(15)=HELLO, which was then decoded by another conscious being with the same understanding, then it would become a language. This does not analogously occur in DNA. The DNA is a substitution of DNA bases grouped in to codon triplets, which are transcribed and translated to make functional polypeptides. This is not a language. A substitution cipher per se does not qualify as a language.

In this case, each amino acid is read as a triplet group of nucleotides called a codon, with other codons dictating the stop and start of translation. As shown in this table, DNA is a substitution cipher like so:

However, DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstracts represent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has “meaning” to an entity which can understand what “5” means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not “understand” that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide “understand” that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA “understand” that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.

 Proteins are the physical product of the genome, and are, analogous to the genes, represented in a linear fashion by chemical encoding. Whilst homology in genes is determined by sequence, homology in proteins is determined by structure and function. It is established that we can find a gene's function by means of working in reverse, which is to discover what the organism in question lacks when this gene is deleted artificially. We can also conclude that homologous genes retain the same function, and there is directly proportional relationship between divergence of function and divergence of base pairs.

The gene families are all homologous, which is to say that they are all built from duplication, which increases the raw material of genetics, and divergence of the different new orthologous and paralogous arms of a set which were created by said mutations. The proteome is the physical expression of such and as such it has precisely the same homologous properties. In evolutionary terms, we examine proteins by their higher subdivisions. We can divide a protein into quaternery domains. We can divide quaternery domains into polypeptide chains, or tertiary domains, which we can divide into batches of supersecondary structures, which we can d