Replies

You said, "No there isn't. The experience of things falling down is NOT a confirmation of the present theory of gravity."
There's no better explanation for the experience of things falling down. If the theory of gravity is not responsible, what theory would you put forward? The last thing about gravity, so we can get back on the topic, the theory of gravity isn't even taught as a theory. It's just taught. Why? Because it makes sense. Evolution doesn't. Not because I don't get it. I do. I understand it. But it can't explain the origins of the species.

You said, "*The* species?"
Why the asterisks? I don't get it? Yes, "the species." There's no grammatical mistake using a definite article with species. Don't you say "the trucks." If that's not your point, be more specific.

As far as your "proofs."
1. See what I posted about the DNA sequence
2. The fossil record. Two things. The amount of fossilized remains found is only the smallest fraction of species purported to have existed. Though there is science and skill in finding them, most of it is random. Without a more complete fossil record, I can't see how it's possible to make anything more than the most base generalizations. With the fossil record found, evolution tries to look at two similar fossils and says this one species turned into that one. As with the DNA evidence, this is pure inference. There is no way to say that. Just because fossil species one is found in one time period and fossil two found in another means nothing. If maybe you had a couple of million of fossils of each, that would be different. But if you only have a handful of fossilized remains for a species, when millions of that species existed, you can't date them exactly. Without using dates, what proof would you used to say this fossilized specie evolved into that one? Similarity? That can't prove anything. Also, as some pretty significant fossil findings (example, some of the more recent "feathered" dinosaurs)used to support evolution have turned out to be misinterpreted or just fake (google it yourself, I want to keep this as short as I can).
3. Evolutionist say that since bats & people & seals have the same number of bones in their appendages, they must have come from a common ancestor. Again, inference. I could go into more about why this exists this way.
4. Evolutionists say what about mitochondria. For cells dependent on more than glycolysis for ATP production, the mitochondria is likely the most important component of the cell outside of the nucleus. It is the organelle that carries out metabolic respiration. It has its own circular stranded DNA like a bacteria that replicates on its own when the rest of the cell does, so people say the cell must have evolved with captured bacteria that also evolved into mitochondria. That's silly just by itself, that they would BOTH happen to evolve together over thousands or millions of years (how long do cells live?) in a way that would allow them both to exist together as a single cell. Isn't it more likely that as the most important organelle outside the nucleus, it should have its own DNA so it can make its proteins necessary for metabolic respiration ON SITE. Doesn't it also make sense that if it has its own DNA, it would replicate along with the rest of the cell. Does to me. By the way, its the mitochondrial DNA (which we inherit from our mothers) that allows scientists who also support evolution to say that humans all descended from a single mother (see the mitochondrial DNA Eve theory).
5. Evolutionists also say if we were created by intelligent design, the creator must not have been too intelligent or we would be better made. They point to the flaws of the eye. The point is, the eye is made as good as it can be & still function as a part of the human body. If it were its own organism, then maybe it could be what those criers call perfect. In fact, our bodies (and all life) is so intelligently designed that evolutionists call it the most amazing machine ever created.

Also, don't forget this:
1. mathematics & statistics shows you can't get order out of chaos. For this, you can't get more highly complex organisms out of the chaotic happenings of natural selection.
2. Chance can't be responsible for anything. Chance is just a term used in statistics. Chance can't cause anything. Chance doesn't make the penny land on heads or tails, it just helps predict the statistics of which it will land on.
3. While still on chance, when figuring the chance that a penny will land heads-up 10 times in a row, you have to multiply the chance it will do so once (1/2) by itself 10 times (1/1024). What's the chance that enough genetic changes would occur to evolve a bacterium into even a protozoan with organelles & a nucleus, much less a human, even if you allow for billions of years. All the evolutionary progress made in the first million years is more statistically likely to be erased by a lethal mutation than furthered by a helpful mutation.
4. Evolution can't explain something as fundamental as sex. Within a species, one organism has to mutate into a male & another has to mutate into a female, in such a way that it happens in both where they can sexually reproduce fertile offspring. But before they can sexually reproduce, they have to evolve haploid tissue within their diploid bodies in order to produce gametes that allow fertilization to take place. Give me a break!
5. Last for now then got to go (Christmas season, you know):
If you're walking down the beach & see an undulating pattern in the sand, you'd say it was caused by repeated wave action during high tide. If you were walking down the beach & saw in the sand "Joe Loves Jane," you'd be an idiot to attribute it to the repeated random actions of waves at high tide and not to an intelligent creator.

"There's no better explanation for the experience of things falling down. If the theory of gravity is not responsible, what theory would you put forward?"

Personal experiences with the phenomena of gravity is not sufficient to support the modern theory of gravity. The hallmark of modern theories of gravity is that they deal with phenomena that lie outside of our everyday experiences; they deal with the extremely small, the extremely massive, and the extremely fast.

"The last thing about gravity, so we can get back on the topic, the theory of gravity isn't even taught as a theory."

Yes it is.

" Why the asterisks? I don't get it? Yes, "the species."

It's not *the species*; it's just species.

" As far as your "proofs."

You're posting to the wrong person. I posted no *proofs*. I will deal with your examples anyway, out of the kindness of my heart.

" 1. See what I posted about the DNA sequence"

I did; it's wrong. It's not just similarities that are found between genomes; it's fossil DNA from past endogenous retrovirus infections that have been passed on. There is also the example of the gene for vitamin C production that is in 99% of mammals except for primates. Oh wait; it IS there, but it is missing a few pieces and is unable to produce vitamin C. It's broken. In the same place. Throughout the primates.

"But if you only have a handful of fossilized remains for a species, when millions of that species existed, you can't date them exactly."

Sure you can. All you need is one.

"Also, as some pretty significant fossil findings (example, some of the more recent "feathered" dinosaurs)used to support evolution have turned out to be misinterpreted or just fake (google it yourself, I want to keep this as short as I can)."

Feathered dinosaurs did exist. They are not fakes. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

"Evolutionist say that since bats & people & seals have the same number of bones in their appendages, they must have come from a common ancestor. Again, inference. I could go into more about why this exists this way."

It's a lot more than just the same number of bones. It's the anatomical similarities. It's also coupled with DNA info as well.

"It has its own circular stranded DNA like a bacteria that replicates on its own when the rest of the cell does, so people say the cell must have evolved with captured bacteria that also evolved into mitochondria."

It doesn't just have the same kind of circular DNA as bacteria; when sequenced it is almost identical to certain bacteria.

"That's silly just by itself, that they would BOTH happen to evolve together over thousands or millions of years (how long do cells live?) in a way that would allow them both to exist together as a single cell. "

Prokaryotic cells have no mitochondria. Cells existed long before mitochondria did.

"The point is, the eye is made as good as it can be & still function as a part of the human body. If it were its own organism, then maybe it could be what those criers call perfect"

Nonsense. The optic nerve is positioned in our field of vision, giving us a blind spot. An octopus does not have this design flaw. Our eyes are not perfect by any stretch.

"If you were walking down the beach & saw in the sand "Joe Loves Jane," you'd be an idiot to attribute it to the repeated random actions of waves at high tide and not to an intelligent creator."

I could say the same for someone who trots out such a moldy old argument for design. Since I know that *Joe Loves Jane* is English and I can read English, I have prior knowledge of who or what the designer is (human). Otherwise I would not be able to say, a priori, that it was designed.

I seemed to have missed the second part of your long post to me earlier.

"1. mathematics & statistics shows you can't get order out of chaos. For this, you can't get more highly complex organisms out of the chaotic happenings of natural selection."

Math and statistics say no such thing. And for the umpteenth time, natural selection is not random. It is not chaotic.

"While still on chance, when figuring the chance that a penny will land heads-up 10 times in a row, you have to multiply the chance it will do so once (1/2) by itself 10 times (1/1024). What's the chance that enough genetic changes would occur to evolve a bacterium into even a protozoan with organelles & a nucleus, much less a human, even if you allow for billions of years. All the evolutionary progress made in the first million years is more statistically likely to be erased by a lethal mutation than furthered by a helpful mutation."

Absolute horse manure. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for you to make such a calculation without knowing the processes that led to the evolution of the protozoan. Anybody who claims to have a probability of such an occurrence is pulling the number out of their butts.

"Evolution can't explain something as fundamental as sex. Within a species, one organism has to mutate into a male & another has to mutate into a female, in such a way that it happens in both where they can sexually reproduce fertile offspring. But before they can sexually reproduce, they have to evolve haploid tissue within their diploid bodies in order to produce gametes that allow fertilization to take place. Give me a break!"

Give us a break! Your example is a creationist fantasy version of evolution.

Ok, now you can go Christmas shopping again. :)