You really think that I am that ignorant of science? I was purposely shortening my responses in order to keep your attention. Had i wrote more would you have changed your opinion? I kept it short to save time
Yes, I do. Because up until now, you've either given unsubstantiated assertions or ridiculously simplified statements regarding your knowledge of science, and furthermore, you've been dismissive and contemptuous of scientific methodology when it comes to evolutionary theory, even though exactly that process was used in formulating every single other scientific theory we have. You can't cherry-pick and say that science is accurate except for this one theory that you personally disagree with, and claim that it's "not proved" and "only a hypothesis" when you yourself admit that key parts of that theory have been proven, and when you have not been able to falsify other key parts of that theory except with logic that has holes big enough to drive a truck through.
A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a discussing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
http://en.wiped.org/wikipedia/Vaccine
I got this off of wikipedia, How does it say anything different then what I said? It just took longer.
Congratulations, you've proved that you can quote Wikipedia. At that, you're in at least the top 10% of all creationist posters on this website. But the fact is, quoting Wikipedia is nothing special. It takes minimal work and effort to look up an entry there, and these entries generally only brush the surface. There's a reason essays generally do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a primary source, not the least of which is the "Holiday Inn Express" syndrome - a person looks something up on Wikipedia and assumes that they're now qualified in the subject.
In reference to your refutation of my knowledge in biology. I understand that fruit flies make fruit flies. People make people. I am not the one boldly claiming that an amoeba, given enough time could make a human. Which one makes more sense?
So, would you say that the Sun orbits the Earth, then, and that scientists are wrong in saying that it's actually the Earth's rotation that causes the Sun to seemingly move? It's the same idea of using what seems obvious to refute an argument that you don't really understand at all. When you get to the crux of things, it's clearly evident that you're making an argument from incredulity here, rather than taking the time to actually try to understand what evolutionary theory really says.
Addressing my stance regarding the sameness of man. How many changes would have been necessary to complete the transition from said amoeba to man? I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes. in two thousand years there should be a few more. Or did all the changes conveniently stop when we became sentient?
I have to ask, do you take pride in showing off your ignorance? You honestly think evolution on Earth has been going on for 15 billion years? Wrong. First off, the universe is currently considered to be 13.7 billion years old. Earth itself has only existed for five billion or so. Life on Earth has probably been around for at least half that time.
So what do you think evolutionary change is? You think it's something obvious, like suddenly growing a tail? Wrong. It's generally very subtle (mutation of genes is the most common kind of evolution), though there are times when you have an explosion of variation (such as after the Cambrian extinction event, or after the dinosaurs were wiped out at the end of the Cretaceous period); organisms generally only change rapidly when there's either plenty of room to expand or practically no room at all.. Furthermore, when you do get an evolutionary change that makes a noticeable difference in survivability, it doesn't take all that long for it to either spread through the population or die out. Otherwise you get all these little tiny changes that are practically unnoticeable, but add up over time.
And finally, for now, yes I am suggesting that when the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis of evolution, the evidence gets discarded.
This argument is the single most pathetic and contemptible one you've made in any of your posts. You are basically accusing scientists of lying, explicitly and implicitly, about evolutionary theory. Not just biologists, but astronomers, geologists, and paleontologists as well, at the very least. And you are doing so not with proof that can be substantiated, but by using "logic" born of your own ignorance on the subject. And in so doing, you tell the same lie that you accuse these others of
Inertia looses its velocity through friction, does not explain sub atomic particles.
You are displaying your ignorance yet again. Inertia is the expression of an object's tendency to continue moving, or not moving, unless acted upon by some other force. Friction is a force that can cause an object's inertia to change by acting as a drag against its velocity, but if you had a perfectly frictionless surface, the object would keep moving at its same speed indefinitely.
