Yup, his post makes me think that VGC needs a 10000 -+ char limit per post.

OT:

I believe in evolution, and there's plenty of evidence support it.

A) i didn't read your post
B) you're wrong
C) you're welcome to your opinion.

I didn't bother to read that wall of text either.

And yeah; everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

The Theory of Evolution is just that; a theory that like any other scientific theory is subject to re-evaluation and additional testing as more information becomes available. If it wasn't subject to re-evaluation, it wouldn't be a theory; it would be the Law of Evolution, which even the most fervent supporters and believers of the theory are probably quick to agree will never happen.

On the flip side of this argument, seeing as how the only agenda for attempting to invalidate the theory of evolution is to suggest, if not declare "this is proof that the Law of Creationism is correct!" Just stop.

If you insist on continuing, then just try writing anything that proves both the existence of your own god as well as the irrefutable proof of its responsibility for the creation of everything.

Your imaginary guy isn't any more valid than any other imaginary guy used to explain how all living things and all physical things in existence were created. If you want to believe in the Hebrew myth; great. It's no less or more valid than any other creation myth to include the following:

Babylonian Creation Myth

Korean Creation Myth

Japanese Creation Myth

Navajo Creation Myth

Norse Creation Myth

Creation Myth from India

Comanche Creation Myth

Chinese Creation Myth

Chelan Creation Myth

Pima Creation Myth

Mayan Creation Myth

Miwok Creation Myth

Salish Creation Myth

Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth

Hopi Creation Myth

Tahitian Creation Myth

Yokut Creation Myth

Egyptian Creation Myths

African - Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths

Micmac Creation Myth

Lakota Creation Myth

Chinese Creation / Flood Myth

Maori Creation Myth

Aztec Creation Myth

Digueno Creation Myth

Apache Creation Myth

African Creation Myths

Dakota Creation Myth

Hungarian Creation Myth

Iroquois Creation Myth

Inuit Creation Myth

Huron Creation Myth

Hawaiian Creation Myth

"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55.)

Wrong. First of all Charles Darwin is not the end all be all father of evolution. He didn't even understand the most basic reason for WHY it occurs.

Second, there are examples of gradation of species from one to another. You don't see crap tons and tons of evidence because frankly we haven't uncovered a quarter of all species that have ever went extinct on the planet. Still, regardless, we DO have examples of a long progressive evolution for instance of man from its ancestors. And no, man did not evolve from APES. That is the fallacy all creationists use, mostly because they don't even understand what they are arguing against. Orangutans (our closest living relative) and man evolved from a common _ancestor_, however far that may have been.

Finally, sometimes there are species that have survived far longer than most other species do. However, that does not in fact suggest that other species did not arise from the still existing ancestor. It is specifically the case that a species can arive _and_ die before its originating parent species.

You sir need to go back to school.

Considerring the slab of text your post is I'll just mention 2 points of contention:

Stasis on the DNA Level

There are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and ‘revived’ from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.

Evolutionists expected DNA sequence after millions of years to be different. It has often used as a cop-out to stasis of organisms in terms of morphology.

The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637

This disproves evolution how? It may have been a little surprising but not all that unexpected. We share 40-50% of our genes with that of a banana so sequence homology between bacteria of 250 million years isn't that big a deal. The bacteria share similar enzymes such as polymerases and proteases. Many proteases for instance share a great deal of sequence and structure homology from bacteria right up to mammals. Futhermore, it only takes a few key mutations and you can completely change the function of an enzyme whilst the sequence and structure remain near identical. If anything, it shows these bacteria may even be common ancestors for many bacteria in the modern day.

The next point actually leads on from this. You said:

Junk DNA

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.” (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)

Recent scientific evidence says otherwise:

"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation...." http://rnajournal.cshlp.org/content/early/2011/03/11/rna.2658311

"What was once considered "junk DNA" now holds the keys to many novel gene regulatory mechanisms..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20639473

Of course there are numerous more studies that shatters the "Junk DNA" myth. According to Jonathan Wells (received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley) exposes the myth in his book aptly titled "The Myth of Junk DNA" http://www.mythofjunkdna.com/

All you've demonstrated here is that our knowledge is always improving, which in actual fact is the goal of science. We're beginning to understand more about "non-coding" or "junk" DNA now (far more than in the 70s) and it actually adds a layer of complexity and shows that mutations in genes aren't the only way evolution proceeds. These "junk" DNA transcribe RNA that helps control gene expression and is a different method of adding diversty/inducing the minor changes needed for evolution to proceed. Think about how the changing of a single genes' expression could cascade and have a knock on effect to numerous other genes.  A whole field of study (epigenetics) looks at how environmental effects can alter gene expression and how these effects can be inherited and passed down to offspring. This is not contrary to the theory evolution but complimentary; adding information and data to an already robust theory.

Christianity and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in God as well as evolution.

Oh and yeah put me down in the TL:DR column, sorry man.

But your comment is....lolz

OT: I think God created Evolution

Why'd he use such a sloppy method?

that is the great thing about scientific research. you don't HAVE to believe anything! you can go and figure things out by yourself if you don't believe others.

it's not like someone slaps a book on your table that has been written thousands of years ago by people nobody knows about and expects you to believe everything it says. that would be crazy, wouldn't it?

"This disproves evolution how? It may have been a little surprising but not all that unexpected. We share 40-50% of our genes with that of a banana so sequence homology between bacteria of 250 million years isn't that big a deal. The bacteria share similar enzymes such as polymerases and proteases. Many proteases for instance share a great deal of sequence and structure homology from bacteria right up to mammals. Futhermore, it only takes a few key mutations and you can completely change the function of an enzyme whilst the sequence and structure remain near identical. If anything, it shows these bacteria may even be common ancestors for many bacteria in the modern day."

It disproves evolution by showing that there is no evolution.

You mean to tell me you wouldn't expect any kind of evolutionary change over 250 million years? The scientists sure did! Evolutionists were so shocked at this stunning lack of change that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination in Vreeland’s experiment. But later experimeints vindicated Vreeland.

I have read evolutionists  trying to explanation away to why there is no evolutionary changes in amber fossils and "living fossils" that are supposedly millions and millions of years old. They would say there weren't morphological changes but there were  probably changes on the DNA/Protein level. Now scientists have discovered 250 million year old (supposedly) bacteria that hasn't evolved on the DNA level.

Evolutionists will say they didn't have evolve on the DNA level because there weren't needed evolutionary pressures or something of that effect. That's a cheap cop-out, ad hoc explanation. That's not science. Evolution can explain any result at all. It explains stasis over millions and millions of years and it explains change over  millions and millions years. Indeed, a theory that explains anything, explains nothing. "Living fossils" should falsify evolution. Unchanged fossils, like this one, that are supposedly ancient, should falsify evolution, but not to the evolutionists who twist and shoehorn evidence  to fit into their preconceived paradigm.

"All you've demonstrated here is that our knowledge is always improving, which in actual fact is the goal of science. We're beginning to understand more about "non-coding" or "junk" DNA now (far more than in the 70s) and it actually adds a layer of complexity and shows that mutations in genes aren't the only way evolution proceeds. These "junk" DNA transcribe RNA that helps control gene expression and is a different method of adding diversty/inducing the minor changes needed for evolution to proceed. Think about how the changing of a single genes' expression could cascade and have a knock on effect to numerous other genes.  A whole field of study (epigenetics) looks at how environmental effects can alter gene expression and how these effects can be inherited and passed down to offspring. This is not contrary to the theory evolution but complimentary; adding information and data to an already robust theory."

All this shows that evolutionists' predictions about "Junk" DNA"or "non coding" DNA were wrong. Today, there is hardly any scientists who still believe there is Junk DNA or "non coding" DNA anymore. Every part of the DNA code is believed to have a function.There is even a recent book about it entitled The Myth of Junk DNA (Jonathan Wells Ph.D).

Just another failed prediction by evolutionists.