Are you trying to shift the burden of proof? Regardless I would like you to adress my points in post #48. But just to humour you I will provide you with several pieces of evidence for evolution and common decent.

1. Endogenous retroviruses
Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Figure 1Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates (Reprinted from Lebedev et al. 2000, © 2000, with permission from Elsevier Science)

2. Transitional forms some creationists claim do not exist, incomplete list in following article.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._intermediates

3. Anatomical vestiges
Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality.
For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings.

These are just three, there are more, loads more. Now for some evidence that the Earth is older than what you claim it is.

1. Radiometric dating

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.
Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites.

Figure 2
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2198/figure1.jpg

2. Ice core dating

The Vostok Ice-Core was collected in East Antarctica by the Russian Antarctic expedition. The Vostok Ice-Core is 2,083 meters long and was collected in two portions: 1) 0 - 950 m in 1970-1974, 2) 950 - 2083 m in 1982-1983. The total depth of the ice sheet from which the core was collected is approximately 3,700 meters.

The ice core was sliced into 1.5-2.0 meter segments. A discontinuous series sampled every 25 meters and a continuous series from 1,406 to 2,803 meters were then sent in solid form to Grenoble, France for further analysis.

At Grenoble the ice was put into clean stainless steel containers. The samples were crushed and then melted with the gases given off collected and saved for further analysis. The melt water was tested for chemical composition and then electrolysised.

The methods used in the determination of the ages include 18O/16O isotopic analysis, independent ice-flow calculations, comparison with other ice cores, paleoclimatic comparison, comparison with deep sea cores, 10Be/9Be isotopic analysis, deuterium/hydrogen isotopic analysis, comparison with marine climatic record, CO2 correspondances between dated ice-cores and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores.

The results determined from these various samples were consistent between the continuous and discontinuous slices within the sections that overlapped. They were also consistent with Greenland ice-cores, other Antarctic ice-cores, dated volcanic records, deep sea cores, and paleoclimatic evidence.

While unable to provide specific dates (within a millenia), the analysis show definate evidence of the the last two ice ages. Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. It should be noted that all of the methods listed above were consistent with the above results.

From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it.

To maintain an age for the earth of 50,000 years, one would need to describe a mechanism that allows more than 2 false ice layers to form per year. It should be noted that one also needs to describe why this mechanism has ceased to function in historic times since the Vostok ice-core demonstrates a number of the historically recorded volcanism at the correct periods of time.

Refrences
1. C. Lorius et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 591-596.
2. F. Yiou et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 616-617.
3. J. Jouzel et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 403-408.
4. J.M. Barnola et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 408-414.
5. van Nostrands' SCIENTIFIC DICTIONARY
6. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
7. E. Wolff, GEOGRAPHICAL MAGAZINE 59 (1987) 73-77.
8. Julie M. Palais OCEANUS 29 (Winter 86/87) 55-60.
9. W. Dansgaard et al., SCIENCE 218 (1982) 1273-1277.
10. C.U. Hammer et al., NATURE 288 (1980) 230-235.


I could go on here but I am tied and in need of sleep.

The embodiment of the immaterial part of a person within the person's flesh; which is kind of self-contradictory as far as the embodiment/immaterial part is concerned. But anyway...

Consciousness is merely a cognitive state of awareness, needless to clarify on the latter part of the quote as such.

Well in the sense of it being self-contradictory (again, the whole "it's immaterial but can manifest in a material entity" thing), no, it's not real. Because it's logically contradictory at the same time, in the same way that you cannot have iron-gold or a bed made of sleep (as I used for previous examples), nor can you have a cubical sphere. Etc.

So long as people keep assigning these gods characteristics, so can we keep disproving the plausibility of their existence (and thusly existence as a whole). For example, as I previously mentioned, most mainstream religious to date (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, to name a few) believe in a supreme deity, who is omnipotent and omniscient- among other things. These two are the most prominent ones people generally mention, however. These two in a single being are contradictory- logically so. Ergo, they cannot and do not exist (the beings, that is, who are said to possess these characteristics). There are a number of people who claim that paradoxes are actually formed, not contradictions. This is by definition, however, incorrect; it's a case of logical contradictions.

Well to question one, the previous paragraph applies. As far as question two is concerned, I might actually bother to sit down and try to find a census from religious folks on why they believe in what they believe. Might actually be interesting.

Well actually, the lack of evidence for these supreme beings IS in fact evidence against their existence, so it doesn't swing "one way or the other". Furthermore, logical contradictions in the gods of such religions as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the final nails in the coffin; if they're contradictory, their existence is impossible (and that's not up for dispute, that logical contradictions within something make it's existence or plausibility impossible on all levels within this realm I mean). But again, people will believe what they want to- despite what reality really is showing us and how it really works.

Sommekampfer.:D

You waste your time with a scientific approach.
Forget mammal/reptile, bird/reptile transitional forms.
Think Beaver, it is a mammal that is also a fish, plus of course the Puffin which is a bird that is also a fish.

But on a more serious note, in relation to points 2&3 in your post. Salamanders, surely they alone would be enough to further frustrate a creationist.
Though the best way to frustrate a creationist is with the scripture they claim is correct.

I lol'd at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vte_K7YHMmM

Next time go to the doctor, you moron. Well- there won't be a next time, but the moral of the story is that the supernatural will not save you.

I wonder if a "soul" is only what we perceive in other people.

Meaning that even if a person dies, their "soul" (our perception of them) continues.

Damn, I thought Booker T & the MGs would have scrambled those perceptions

Ohyeah I know all about those "transitionals" some creationists ask for, even though if we did find a ****ing crocoduck that would falsify evolution on the spot.

Not really, antikristuseke gives me the impression to know much more about it. I have just read three or four books of popular science on biology and evolution of life on earth - with the accent on "popular science". ;)

In All Honesty
 

After reading through some of this thread I have to say it is quite refreshing to see this debate take place with so little vitriol and anger involved. In all honesty however, I have to admit that while I am perfectly capable of having this discussion in a friendly non-combative tone, I have little to no intellectual respect for any person who believes that some kind of supernatural being from beyond created our Earth and indeed the entire universe a mere 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

I've seen comments claiming that coming to a conclusion based on incredible amounts of firm, testable, solid scientific data requires the same level of faith as believing in fictional stories created by savage desert people over a thousand years ago. I'm sorry but there is a very clear difference in each of these approaches and to equate the two is dishonest and misleading.

I think what is required is a few additional rules before we can honestly continue this debate if we truly hope to learn something by having this discussion.

Actually only one additional rule is truly required and I will explain why.

The world of science is vast and full of many characters. Scientists are people just like you and me and often do become wrapped up in trying to prove a theory. Sometimes even to the point of acknowledging only that evidence which supports their theory while ignoring all evidence which puts it in doubt. That is why we have the peer review process in the scientific community which is designed to make sure only the strongest theories, which have withstood the most amount of scrutiny will be accepted as true and real science.

This is achieved by rigorous examination by the scientific community of any scientific research that is submitted for the peer reviewed process. The work is examined and tested by highly educated professionals in the field and if the research is found to be accurate it is published as officially scientifically reviewed research and can be trusted as the best data available on the subject at that time.

Without the peer review process I could put forth any ridiculous, crackpot theory I want to come up with as real science. I could say that clouds are composed of dragon farts or the Earth is actually only a few thousand years old or any other unfounded simpleton nonsense I may decide to come up with.

That is why in order to ensure the validity of the discussion I propose we initiate a new rule requiring all evidence presented by either side to include references to peer reviewed research.

Naturally, Creationism Theology, much like voodoo or witchcraft, has never been verified as real science by making it through the peer reviewed process, so please keep this in mind while reading some outlandish conclusions I have seen Creationists present as "evidence" against the process of evolution.

So how bout it, who thinks the rule should be added and followed from this point forward?

Evolution was created!:D

Peer review is also a flawed process, serving mainly to suppress legitimate research, while it does actually prevent some crackpot pseudo-science from publication. Most scientific innovation takes place in spite of, not because of the peer review process.

New science is developed through the process of heresy. Heresy is the specific target of peer review. But according to myself and Stephen David Ross in Metaphysical Aporia and Philosophical Heresy,
Peer review, for the very purpose of squashing heresy, keeps heresy honest and so functions as its own kind of heresy: one that should be scanned with a jaundiced eye and analyzed for agenda-driven behavior.

The idea of Godless science is one that Newton would have roundly and not politely scorned!

Rockin Robbins, peer review suppresses legitimate research in what way exactly?
And what sir Newton thought about god is completely irrelevant to the discussion and it is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Theories have to stand on their own merits.

I havent forgotten this thread - good to see the discussion is continuing. Am researching what I can when my mind isn't fuzzy.