Explain the Trilobite

lmao! Just look at this temper tantrum.

Call the Waaaaaaaaaaaambulance! I think this creationist is gonna blow!



Shout, curse and bang your fists, it will not change either the history or course of natural selection.

 

Nice reply. I will take that as your way of admitting you cannot read and comprehend the simplest of ideas.
Seriously, you are effectively becoming a 'troll' or derailing a topic when you just deliberately write stupid uncalled for replies over and over again.

 

Seeing that you post this type of garbage, I thought you were the troll. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if you're a satan worshipper trying to make look creationists look stupid, not that it would be a feat of any consequence.

In any case, thanks for providing the comic relief and please bring more ridiculous theories on astrophysics and genetics.

 

I honestly don't have time to waste to continue this thread. The bottom line here is neither I nor you have enough information to debate this topic correctly. I have bits and pieces of knowledge conceptually, but I cannot accurately give you the knowledge required to show you exactly how evolution works. It would take a good ten years of college to be even possibly considered knowledgeable on the subject. This entire debate would be nothing more than a joke to any serious Biologist. The top evolutionists that have studied for more years than you've lived have proven evolution, it's known as fact. Do you see anyone with a degree in creationism? Of course not, because creationism isn't even recognized by a single respected member of the science community. Go get a degree in evolutionism and then you can try and debate that it is non-existant. By that time you would have had so much actual proof, hard evidence, that it would be impossible to logically deny evolutionism. Right now you are speaking from your heart, you have no knowledge on the subject and are speaking purely of bias. You are uncredible and ignorant.

And so many people think that evolution makes religion impossible, when it does not. Why can't there be evolution and a higher being? There can. There is no reason that God creating life forms then evolution taking place is a contradiction. Many people, mostly southerners (not to stereotype but it is true) say "I didn't come from no Goddamn monkies!" when that is not what evolutionism is saying. It stating that some millions of years back all life had a common ancestor.

I mean look at it, all life forms have DNA, obviously we all got it from somewhere. You talk about probabilities, what's the probability that every single known life form just happens to have DNA? It's obvious that they are related in some way. Furthermore, genes of one species are compatible with genes of another. Scientists have recently extracted the gene from bioluminescent jellyfish DNA and have proven that it can be easily accepted into other organism's DNA, they have a rabbit that glows green to prove it.

And evolution does not have to result in entirely new species, it's just changes in their allelic frequencies. It has happened in your life time, well maybe not yours but your parents for sure. Ask them to think about the game of basketball; ask them to compare the height of players today and players when they were a child, they most definately have gotten taller. Why? Because their allelic frequencies have evolved. Another example is bacteria; you always hear in the new how they are becoming resistant to medicines. Why? Because they evolved.

 

There are no degrees in Evolutionism or Creationism.
Evolution is not something like Bio or Chem where there is an actual lab, things to do etc.
Same goes for Creationism though.

I have some bad news for you. The reason Im a 'creationist' is because I took so much interest in paleontology and geology that I had every intention of making a career out of it.
I also believed there must be lots of 'actual proof' and 'hard evidence' and some sort of elite laboratory somewhere with 'Evolutionists' doing tests and there I could see the actual evidence.
Woops.
Nope... none of that exists. Its not a 'real science' of any sort and there certainly is no such things as these 'proofs' or evidence.

Im going to agree strongly with your first half.
Most researchers describe their origins view as 'theistic evolutionism' and at this point most scientists (particularly the 'workmen' of science that is to say the researchers not so much the 'philosophers') put themselves in the 'ID' category.
Dont worry, I was a 'Theistic' evolutionist even when I did buy into evolutionism.
I cannot even begin to imagine how anyone could believe rock sludge grandmother could mate with lightning bolt grandfather, build all the genetic information on earth as it morphed into bats, fish, turkeys and humans.
That absolutely IS what evolutionists believe in.
You would have to believe a God was behind that mindboggler!


As for the running Evo 'gotcha' where 'we came from monkeys' is attributed to unbelievers so it can be 'technically corrected' that we did not.
No.
Evolutionisms story does indeed have it that humans are from 'apes' and I see now they are even changing the words again so its 'Ape Like'.
But just dont bother playing with the taxonomy that Evos themselves make for themselves.
Just say what it is - Monkeys.

Highly probable if you accept that God created it for that purpose.
Its called 'Economy of Design' and its like asking 'whats the chances that all the blueprints for automobiles from motorcycles to trucks to aircraft all contain metal, bolts, wiring, frames, oil gauges and so on.

Oh but it does have to because the least of its challenges is what to do with alleles once you already have completed beings full of information.
It most definately does claim to result in inorganic soup (rock sludge) being electrified, turning into a single protein strand and then morphing into every species on earth from beetles to hawks to octopi.

Absolutely no evolution occurs.
Already existing genes are selected and there is something to say about hormones and nutrition in all this.
Even still.... this is not evolution and its already existing information. There is no reason to believe new 'height genes' that didnt exist before somehow created themselves inside grandpa and then appeared in grandson. Nothing like that is happening at all.

Nope.
The 'devolved' and its just more 'hard evidence' that we can either select from already existing information and we can sometimes 'lose' part of that information.
Thats what happens with Bacteria btw.
you can say its 'specialising' but it is definately not 'aquiring' new traits.

This is the biggest fattest canard of evolution propaganda by the way.
It goes like this:
We have lots of evidence you can change information. Imagine an alphabet and then demonstrating how you can make words, new words, new combos etc.
So thats 'Evolving' right.
Ok,
And we have lots of evidence that information can be mutated. Imagine a page where the letters have been smudged, doubleprinted, half printed etc.
Ok that 'evolving right.
Ahhhh (trick warning)

Since info can be changed around and can mutate and these are called 'evolution' then
*therefore*
This shows that it could also build itself too.
Right?
Well I just proved that 'evolution' happens right?

Figure out the trick in that 'logic' and you best go sit down because you are about to realise some shocking news - Evolutionism is fake.

 

Shows what you know; you can, in fact, get a degree in evolution and there are, in fact, things to be done in a lab, etc.

Then you must have been studying in Antarctica. You can't honestly expect me to believe your claims when you deny an entire branch of science.

That is not what evolutionists believe at all; you are completely and utterly wrong. And I'm not saying this because you're facts are a joke, you are actually absolutely wrong.

You are only further proving your ignorance.

I find it extremely humerous that you even used probability and God in the same sentence; you just failed the litmus test of science.

Where on earth do you hear this bs? Evolution in now way makes claims regarding where life originated, it accounts for it's progression through time. Inorganic soup and whatnot have nothing to do with evolution, even a monkey knows that.

You talk as if you actually believe you know what you're talking about. Hilarious.

Whatever you say. I've actually brought up this topic with my Biology professors, whom have 20, 30, even 40 years of experience and knowledge under their belt. I find it amusing you even try to argue; bravo.

Evolution doesn't claim any of that, if you had half of a brain maybe you would realize that. You can say what you think evolution claims, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Yes indeed Evolutionists believe that rock sludge mated with lightning and then morphed into all life on earth.
Thats the belief system.

By all means feel free to tell me where exactly I could get a Masters in Evolution, be a Professor of Evolution or what initials an 'Evolutionist' has after their name?
Stephen J Gould PE?

There are Biologists.
There are people like Gould who was a Zoologist.
There are Chemists.
There are Geologists.

There is not such a thing as 'Evolutionists' although many biologists, chemists, zoologists also happen to believe in that story.
There is not a 'Evolution School'.
You University doesnt have an Evolutionism Wing or the 'Evolution Lab'.

All of this makes sense when you realise that its because there is no 'actual thing' called 'Evolution' going on.
Its not a 'real thing' that you can do somewhere.

I really have no idea why you are even attempting to turn this around and pretend like you are laughing away at this.
Are you just hoping to disuade other readers and hoping they wont catch on or investigate or what?

You know what really does strike me as funny - I would not be fuckin surprised (now taht I think about it) to find out the naturalistic boards to one of these schools make up a new field called:
Evolutionist lol.
Like you could get an actual degree in 'evolutionism' and your actual title would be 'Bachelors in Evolution' or something like that.
funny shit.
I would not doubt that someone doesnt try that. If nothing else just because they think it will 'battle creationism'.

 

Of course it would not be called a degree in evolution, I assumed that would be taken as obvious. Evolution is merely a concept in science which overlaps much of biology, degrees specializing in specific fields can be thought of as a degree in evolution, seeing as the subject matter is the same, or at least overlapping. A mathemetician can be specialized in Calculus, but it does not state he has a degree in Calculus, it's a degree in Mathematics.
The point is, in science evolution is not some topic biologists debate over the water cooler, it's fact. I guarantee you, you merely speak of creationism to any respected biologist and they will treat you like a ten year old; which isn't too farfetched, you've already demonstrated you have the intelligence of one.
And once again, evolution does not state anything about rock sludge and lightening, it only makes statements upon the evolution of life after it was created. The problem here is you don't even know what evolution states, evolution to you and I ( and the scientific community) are two very different things. If you cannot at least correctly state evolution's claims, please stop calling it evolution, call it 'Ikdenkhetniet's version of evolution' if you must. It really undermines your intelligence to misuse terms like such.

 

Oh there is a huge problem with defining evolutionism thats for sure.
Reason why:
Because its not a really a 'model' so much as its an ever increasing and decreasing series of 'connect-the-dots' and really just a story that morphs around whenever a new dot (a fact) shows up or leaves.

Last week Abiogenesis was what evolutionism was all about.
This week they surrendered it and tossed it out the plane.
Last month it was 'mutation+plus' selection over millions of increments.
This month, that is all but 'heresy' and Punc-eek (hopeful monsters) is official.
This week Austrolopithecines are 'ape-men' again, no they are not, yes they are, no they are not.
Dinos-to-birds is totally rejected... nope, now theses one fight for it again.

Now one of the things you have to want from a theory is some sort of 'increasing' unity and shape appearing.
Not with the Evo-morphing story though... this thing not only has more and more gaps appearing but less and less connections as it goes on.
And they broaden too.

Here me now and listen to me later - Evolution is dead and the only thing keeping it alive is now rhetoric and its corpse being animated for the public even more.
Its done for.
In the 'back of the labs' after hours, around the water cooler.... your typical scientists, if they could go 'off the record' would tell you something - they would abandon the theory yesterday.
Its not good and actualy its terrible.
They might even believe in it as a 'what you got to work with for now' sorta of mandate but they know its crap.
They know it.

The big problem here is that there is a two-part public who doesnt know any better.
The first part is a sort of recruited army of youth who are so impressionable that they actually believe they should defend Evolutionism.
Like it was a way to defend anti-iraq war or something.
Second level;
The vast majority of the public who doesnt really care so more or less just accepts what they see on the Media.
The propaganda films shown on 'Discovery' or whatnot.

The worst thing in all this - the longer we hang onto this Evolutionism and the longer the naturalistic ones hold the keys to power (which is still another 10 years or so) then the longer we are impeding what might be a new era of scientific enlightenment.
Something which has been sorely lacking in our civilisation.

 

You are vastly overcomplicating things. There are literally thousands of bits of research and information that proves the evolution of life. There are thousands of experiments with data that prove the evolution of life. You treat it like it is some thought up theory that's never been tested and cannot be linked to hard evidence when it has. You are used to creationism, which is just a theory thought in one's head and never subjected to physical experiment or proven. The fact is creationism and evolution are incomparable. It's like you are trying to compare your unicorn to my horse, while all you have is a drawing you made while I have an actual horse. If you deny that evolution is not proven by experimentation then you are denying fact.

 

"There are literally thousands of bits of research and information that proves the evolution of life. There are thousands of experiments with data that prove the evolution of life."

I can tell you there are not.

Thousands that will militate directly against the notion of evolutionism but none going the otherway.

 

You realize you are trying to deny the very existance of evidence proved by thousands over scientists over nearly two centuries? Please tell me where you get your information from, really, I'd like to know.

 

Paintballer, please stop trying to 'retro-bluff' me on this.
If you wanted to stop this 20 posts ago you could have easily posted 'thousands' of these alleged tests.
but...

No, im serious, there is no such mechanism for how evolutionism could happen.
Thats why there is not 'evolution lab' where things are being 'studied evolving' or any of these notions you have.

We do have thousands of hours of research studying how DNA occasionally mutates and/or gets lost.
That might be what you are thinking of?
Thats actualy the very opposite thing in to what is 'imagined' must have happened long ago, in another time, that nobody say or heard of.

 

Once again, I do not have the knowledge to prove the evolutionary claims to you. Likewise, you do not have the knowledge to refute them. But as I have said many a time, in the real world of science this debate would not last a second, maybe in church.

Ask any biologist regarding those who refute evolution and they will tell you it is due to ignorance; and as Jeremy Taylor once said (yes, I realize the irony):

It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it and therefore he that can perceive it hath it not.

 

Try and understand what your position is here Paint?
Your position is that somewhere, somehow in some place that there is proof of evolutionism.
That we should just 'beleive' they have tests and work on it and also that anyone who is right and good knows its fact.
People who dont must simply 'not know'.

Come on.

 

I'm not saying that anyone who is right and good knows it's fact; I'm saying any biologist with a degree in biology knows it's fact. I'm just saying you, as well as many others, are trying to get caught up in something that would take years to learn. I don't see you arguing quantum physics on a daily basis. Why? Because it's something complex that requires time and learning. Evolution works the same way; except the general public has dumbed had dumbed it down and misinterpreted it so they can debate over it; which is a joke to a biologist who has actually taken years of learning and work to understand the topic. The fact is neither of us have the credentials to argue over it; it's as simple as that.

 

You never want to base truth on an appeal to authority (majority) and nowhere could that be better demonstrated than by asking you if Creationism was a 'proven fact' when every serious scientist before Darwin accepted it as such?
Of course you would say that didnt make it so.
Anyways,

AIG has a decent page of some 'Creationist' Scientists.
Now this is not to be confused with 'ID Proponents' or 'Theistic Evolutionists' which would basically be half the Scientists on earth.

These are just some of the 'Genesis account Creationists' here, this list is for the 'Doctorates' and 'Profs' mind you:

• Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
• Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
• Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
• Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
• Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
• Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
• Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
• Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
• Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
• Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
• Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
• Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
• Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
• Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
• Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
• Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
• Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
• Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
• Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
• Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
• Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
• Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
• Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
• Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
• Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
• Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
• Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
• Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
• Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
• Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
• Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
• Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
• Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
• Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
• Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
• Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
• Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
• Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
• Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
• Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
• Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
• Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
• Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
• Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
• Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
• Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
• Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
• Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
• Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
• Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
• George T. Javor, Biochemistry
• Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
• Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
• Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
• Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
• Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
• Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
• Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
• Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
• Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
• Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
• Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
• Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
• Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
• Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
• Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
• Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
• Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
• Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
• Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
• Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
• Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
• Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
• Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
• Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
• Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
• Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
• Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
• Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
• Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
• Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
• Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
• Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
• Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
• Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
• Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
• Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
• Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
• Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
• Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
• Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
• Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
• Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
• Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
• Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
• Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
• Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
• Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
• Prof. Richard Porter
• Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
• Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
• Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
• Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
• Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
• Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
• Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
• Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
• Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
• Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
• Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
• Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
• Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
• Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
• Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
• Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
• Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
• Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
• Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
• Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
• Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
• Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
• Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
• Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
• Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
• Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
• Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
• Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
• Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
• Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
• Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
• Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
• Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
• Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
• Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
• Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
• Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
• Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
• Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
• Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
• Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
• Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
• Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
• Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
• Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
• Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
• Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
• Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
• Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
• Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
• Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

More at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

 

Having Dr. in front of your name doesn't make you an expert on genetics or evolution. I would be willing to bet large sums of money that comparing your list with those doctors of anything and everything that disagree with you would be like comparing a grain of sand to the Sahara.

As I've said before. You've invented your own version of evolution to fight against. Because you can't see that, you are an idiot.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

Uh, actually having a doctorate in genetics does make you an expert on genetics.
i.e. Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist is an expert on it.

There is no such thing as a Doctorate in Evolution.
Evolution isnt a science like would be genetics, bio or chem etc.

Oh good.. a wikipedia article.
Yes Ive read that about 100 times already thanks and I repeatedly explain to you that Evolutionism can change, morph, omit and add as it goes along at whatever given time.
I will explain evolutionism to you whenever you want to listen.

 

You know his father was a missionary? It is possible to be a doctor and a nut. But look at those degrees you listed above. How many are even close? You are trying to disprove evolution by saying "these are smart people who are creationists." And if that's the way you're going to do it, I just want you to know you're outnumbered.

Is there a doctorate in gravity? Heliocentrism? Evolution isn't a field of learning. It is covered by biology, and a bit of chemistry.

Yes, science changes. Science is based on facts, and facts change, new fact arise, new ideas come around to explain the facts, etc. To be creationist you must deny fact. I suggest you read it again, because it doesn't appear to me that you know anything about evolution. Maybe history. Maybe.

Please, feel free to explain your version of evolution to me. If it's the same as past times, though, forget it. What I'm doing on here is having a discussion on evolution, while it seems your intent is only to heap your scorn on anything scientific. So if you want to honestly tell me your understanding, I'd be interested to know.