NationStates Jolt Archive

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

I'm a Muslim that believes in evolution.

Just wanted to say that

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

This ought to be good. Since science is on our side, how about you state your evidence and facts?

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
I think...I smell sarcasm.

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.

Well, you were sarcastic. G00d 4 u.

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.

We exist because of scented candles?!

o wait.. that's Incense. Sorry. ^^;

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.

It's right about Etrusca. :eek:

Baaaazzziiinnnnnnggg!!!

This ought to be good. Since science is on our side, how about you state your evidence and facts?


What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that computers are the tool of Satan? What are you doing here? You should be out burning witches or putting Galileo under house-arrest or something.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that computers are the tool of Satan? What are you here?

Wait are you telling me theres no computers in heaven?! *goes off to pursue sins of the flesh* hahaha suckers! Bet you'll get AOL at best!

Didn't anyone ever tell you that computers are the tool of Satan? What are you doing here? You should be out burning witches or putting Galileo under house-arrest or something.

Um... who have you been listening to? That was kinda random.

Creationsim is wrong! Its an entire theory that can't be supported by anything but invisibles!

There is no proof, just people wanting you to have faith! The facts of Christianity contradict itself!

If you believe otherwise, you've fallen to Christian Propoganda!

Just thought I'd share that.

I'm a Muslim that believes in evolution.

Just wanted to say that
The intellectual Mahometan... :rolleyes:

Um... who have you been listening to? That was kinda random.

Oh yeah? Well, I haven't put on deodorant in FOUR DAYS!

Creationsim is wrong! Its an entire theory that can't be supported by anything but invisibles!

There is no proof, just people wanting you to have faith! The facts of Christianity contradict itself!

If you believe otherwise, you've fallen to Christian Propoganda!

Just thought I'd share that.


Can you prove that G-d doesnt exist? I mean have you not seen him? I've seen him... and died...and been ressurected... 3 days later.. for i am your lord and savior... Twix.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.
Irreducable complexity does not exist.

It's funny how people that are against evolution spend all their time attacking science and trying to show that science is wrong -- nobody seems able to prove that they're right, only that the other guy is wrong.

Science is an evolving discipline -- new things come out of it every day, and so you can't just say that science is wrong and that you're right unless you can prove yourself right. (don't just try and show that the other guy is wrong...)

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.

Well, you notice that Neadrethals were actually supposed to be far superior to modern humans in just about every aspect. I'd wager that they were the originals, we're the prodects of that incest.

However, the incest only lasted a few generations. The early people had many children, so a few generations down the road, you'd be pretty sure of not marrying you're relatives.

Can you prove that G-d doesnt exist? I mean have you not seen him? I've seen him... and died...and been ressurected... 3 days later.. for i am your lord and savior... Twix.

I haven't seen him actually. But I certianly here a lot about a big invisible guy who a lot of people believe in but can never prove exists. . . .I wonder.

I haven't seen him actually. But I certianly here a lot about a big invisible guy who a lot of people believe in but can never prove exists. . . .I wonder.

Technically you can't prove he doesnt exist...

For all you know i don't exist but am actually a computer program... or your high right now, and your like hallucogeningenginege,..... i hate spelling/ Either way your hallucinating that i'm typing... Oo take that!

Well, you notice that Neadrethals were actually supposed to be far superior to modern humans in just about every aspect. I'd wager that they were the originals, we're the prodects of that incest.

However, the incest only lasted a few generations. The early people had many children, so a few generations down the road, you'd be pretty sure of not marrying you're relatives.
So, you are saying that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals...
Mmmh, then that means that evolution is not wrong, doesn't it?

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
LETS HEAR IT FOR A LACK OF EVIDENCE!

Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?

Is this in what you base your statement? Haaaahaaaahaahaaa

I'm just going to sit down over here to watch.

(HINT: No, irreducible complexity doesn't mean anything)

So, you are saying that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals...

And the sharp point of the rapier of logic hits home once more! Score one for Darwin!

What do you mean science is on you're side?

Well, it is.

Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.

This is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard, considering that the data that microbiology has collected is *part of* the evolutionary theory.

Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?

Yeah, it's what a select few people who like to pretend that the are scientists say when they think something is hard.

Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve.

Funny, bacteria don't seem to have trouble doing it....

It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.

Darling, evolution already starts with life already formed. Perhaps you should actually look into the theory a bit before you make yourself look like a complete idiot. Abiogenesis and evolution are two differnt theories.

o yes I agree completely. Humans were always on earth and god watched over them while they ate an apple, then threw them out of a garden, then the suggar plum fairies came and cured all diseas. There is no evidence for creationism. There can't be because it would all have to be magic. However evolution's backing comes from non-bias research over quite a bit of time. Tell me, just to make yourself clear, where are these facts and supporting evidence?

On a creationists time line where did the dinosaurs go? Also how did egypt have so many dynasties because they all don't fit in the 6,000 years it alows.

Darling, evolution already starts with life already formed. Perhaps you should actually look into the theory a bit before you make yourself look like a complete idiot. Abiogenesis and evolution are two differnt theories.

lets hope thats the end of this

So, you are saying that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals...
Mmmh, then that means that evolution is not wrong, doesn't it?

thats a good one.

anyhoo prove your idea, give me one thing that says your right and i'm wrong, and if you say the bible then iam going to point you too the hundreds of book that say that iam right, i want facts not "well god says so"

and to be clear, men wrote the bible and not god, we could have messed it up because, as you know, we are not perfect, "god" made us that way and you have already help pove my point be saying Neanderthals were our forfathers, which they are not because they lack key cromisones that we have but on that note homo sapians and neanderthals have one other thing in common we both share genes from homo habilis, which they would be the "originals" and there you go your idea has a new hole in it.

prove your point, FACTS

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.

Ya. We do. It's wrong, but oh well. That's what Makes us flawed, at least that's what I believe.

I believe that the basic premise of evolution is entirely wrong. That is, one species evolving into another, more complex species over a matter of millions of years. (Though the millions of years is another story). Let me first state that I am a christian, and a Creationist in the general sense, which means I believe we were created by an intelligent designer. However, I believe that many things about the theory of evolution are correct, such as natural selection. The evolving part I find complete and utter bull. I'm not going to debate this from a religious standpoint. This is from a scientific standpoint.

First of all, evolution can prove itself wrong. Natural selection, and survival of the fittest say that species will change for the better to adapt to their environments. That's all well and true. The theory of evolution says that reptiles evolved over millions of years into birds. Ok. But what of the intermediate forms? The reptile would have had to, over millions of years, gradullay develop wings, feathers, etc. So, these intermediate forms of the reptile-bird don't have wings, but nubs. But it doesn't do the reptile any good. They're changing, but the wings/ nubs wouldn't do any better than regular limbs...so how would the ones without nubs get killed off by natural selection if they're doing just as well as those with them? It doesn't add up.

Another major point I have is a rather large and complicated one, dealing with the amount of genetic information in a certain living organism. Evolution states that we, and every other living organism, developed out of single cell bacteria. Alright. The problem is, those single cells have a very limited amount of genetic information. Say, about enough information to fill a 200 page book. We, as humans, have enough genetic info to fill a library of thousands of books. The problem here, is adding enough genetic information to cause mutations, to cause organisms to evolve. In fact, Scienctists can't prove that one letter of genetic code can be added. You can't just have mutations, and add genetic code. It doesn't work that way. Mutations only change the genetic code.

I've looked at it logically, and religiously. I can really only come to the conclusion that something must have influenced the way we came about. I mean, scientists are missing something that either came about, or something the lord above did to influence it. It's the only conclusion I can really draw.

A couple of links:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

http://www.highschoolscience.com/conf/enemy.pdf

Answer these questions, please, if you can.

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is: does it provide answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory, it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Below are a few of the questions that should be answered.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Ears evolve?
5. Eyes evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Source:http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheFalseReligionofEvolution.htm

well the theory oof evolution is quite aparent in our day to day lives, anyone ever heard of bacterial resistance to anit-biotics, or how about viruses like HIV and influenza these viruses are able to change there very genetic structure. I am a scientifically adept while deeply spiritual christian. J. Christ forever!
Amen fellow brethern

ok here is a simple example, it hurts my head to use it but here is goes

Dude wheres my car?

to find your car start from the back and work your way to the spot where you left is, it takes time, this has been goign one for millions and millions of years its goigng to take a lot of time that is why they dont call it the LAW of evolution because they are still trying to find out how it happened

please prove your idea and stop trying to disprove ours nothing will work if you keep on trying to do it this way

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.

Well doesnt that just make life worth living. Whilst i'm sure im not the first person to piont out the gaping and ridiculous holes in your wierdly indocrtinated arguement, i shall proceed anyway in the hope that you will allow me to see the light and follow you with the silken words of Christ.

Microbiology has not dissproven evolution it has in fact proven it, as we are all well aware bacteria live relative to our life cycles as macro-organisms (if you will) a good deal faster than we do. And as such are able to develope through the process of natural selection immunities to anti-biotics and other detrimental biotic and abiotic factors within the environement. This includes toxins and extreme heat. As such one humble bacteria has overcome the challenges of its environment and has changed to become a new more resiliant bacteria. This is evolution.

To say that science cannot explain the existance of the first cells is both out of date and patantly ludicrous. Science is not sure which of many possible ways cells first came about. To say that no-one knows sounds remarkably like the end result of a very long chain of hearsay.

Contrary to popular belief Christians of such calibre as our esteemed host do not in fact spend their time hunting down the spawns of Satan, they in fact spend their time helping others to see the light of their more godly views, in direct violation of Jesus' command that you should treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated. By saying that such a thing as athiest propoganda exists and refering to it in a derogitory manner implies that you do not wish to hear it, and have no wish for it to exist. Hence were you in our position you would not wish to hear Christian propoganda or Muslim proganda or Hare Krishnas or scientologists or indeed any form of religous nonsense, whether or not your beliefs are true it is not for you to push it upon others, it is for others to come looking. A good Boddhisattva waits for his students to come to him, an unwilling pupil is not one that should be being taught.

Take my advice and should you be serious in your original post, leave and re-think your lifestyle and that of those around you. Assume a more Buddhist lifestyle and live a betterl ife.

These messages have been pedantically brought to you by Fenix, there may be innacuracies within them piont them out if you will. I'm all ears.

The intellectual Mahometan... :rolleyes:

You're implying that it's an oxymoron??
I bet you'd label yourself an intellectual...

Hello, Kettle? This is Pot.
This is Pot calling Kettle. Black, are you receiving?

1. Where did the space for the universe come from? Irrelevent.
2. Where did matter come from? Irrelevent
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? Irrelevent
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? It's not
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? Conversion of mass to energy.
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter? It doesn't
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself? It didn't learn, it's forced to because of surface area constraints
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Bacteria, with their sex pili. Transfers plasmids from one bacteria to another, complete with male and female bacteria.
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? More chances to get their genetic material passed on to the next generation. Not all of them will survive, but make enough and some will.
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)- Mutations don't have to be recombinations, they can be additions and frameshifts. All things are read in the same basic code (3 mRNA nucleotides for one amino acid) and changing the reading frame can drastically change the protein from. Do it enough times and you will get something novel.
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor? No.
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code? Wrong.
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?) See Volvox.
2. Single-celled animals evolve? From bacteria.
3. Fish change to amphibians? Look it up
4. Amphibians change to reptiles? Look it up.
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live? What do you mean?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
Right. Look it up.
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices. o.O. In order: The food to be digested, the digestive system, the appetite, the ability to find it, the digestive juices/the resistance to it at roughly the same time.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? Ability. Drive came much later.
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs? Throat, lungs, mucus lining
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? RNA. Duh.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose? What?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? Plants.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? Sigh...blood supply, repair, hormone, nervous, bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons
8. The immune system or the need for it? Need for it.
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships? Because it happens to be the only credable theory. Try learning bio without it.
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design? Chance. Mimicry is basically taking protection in someone elses defenses. Things that look like dangerious things don't get eaten.
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution- Sorry? Yes it would, guilt and mercy are all related to phliantropy (and the entire relatedness-sacrifice thing) and love is just lust showing itself a bit stronger.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from? Irrelevent.
2. Where did matter come from? Irrelevent
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? Irrelevent
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? It's not
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? Conversion of mass to energy.
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter? It doesn't
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself? It didn't learn, it's forced to because of surface area constraints
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Bacteria, with their sex pili. Transfers plasmids from one bacteria to another, complete with male and female bacteria.
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? More chances to get their genetic material passed on to the next generation. Not all of them will survive, but make enough and some will.
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)- Mutations don't have to be recombinations, they can be additions and frameshifts. All things are read in the same basic code (3 mRNA nucleotides for one amino acid) and changing the reading frame can drastically change the protein from. Do it enough times and you will get something novel.
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor? No.
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code? Wrong.
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?) See Volvox.
2. Single-celled animals evolve? From bacteria.
3. Fish change to amphibians? Look it up
4. Amphibians change to reptiles? Look it up.
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live? What do you mean?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
Right. Look it up.
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices. o.O. In order: The food to be digested, the digestive system, the appetite, the ability to find it, the digestive juices/the resistance to it at roughly the same time.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? Ability. Drive came much later.
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs? Throat, lungs, mucus lining
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? RNA. Duh.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose? What?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? Plants.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? Sigh...blood supply, repair, hormone, nervous, bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons
8. The immune system or the need for it? Need for it.
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships? Because it happens to be the only credable theory. Try learning bio without it.
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design? Chance. Mimicry is basically taking protection in someone elses defenses. Things that look like dangerious things don't get eaten.
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution- Sorry? Yes it would, guilt and mercy are all related to phliantropy (and the entire relatedness-sacrifice thing) and love is just lust showing itself a bit stronger.

Ya fail. Nice try, though. You still can't add genetic information. By the way, I'm in advanced biology, so I know the theory well enough.

0/10.

Ya fail. Nice try, though. You still can't add genetic information. By the way, I'm in advanced biology, so I know the theory well enough.

0/10.
HAHAHAHA.

I'm in AP bio. I've talked to people who are in AP bio and got 5's on the test. You're dead wrong. Additions and deletions/frame shifts add genetic information.

Say nothing of polyploidy.

Yes you can, its one of the types of genetic mutation its called shock horror Addition. it is the addition of one or more letters into the gene. this may result from broken err. danm my poor memories. those connecters that pull chromosomes apart during meiosis. Or it may simply be that a letter as been added during the copying process by accident, after all even within the body accidents happen.

HAHAHAHA.

I'm in AP bio. You're dead wrong. Additions and deletions/frame shifts add genetic information.

No, they don't. You still cannot ADD genetic information...it's not like a house that can be remodeled. Deletions, however, do occur.

No, they don't. You still cannot ADD genetic information...it's not like a house that can be remodeled. Deletions, however, do occur.
Are you denying that additions occur?

Look it up in your 'advanced biology' book.

Ya fail. Nice try, though. You still can't add genetic information. By the way, I'm in advanced biology, so I know the theory well enough.

0/10.

I WANT YOU TO PROVE YOUR IDEA NOT SAY OURS IS DUMB

god damit people are bothersom

Ya fail. Nice try, though. You still can't add genetic information. By the way, I'm in advanced biology, so I know the theory well enough.

0/10.

Yes you can.

There are bacteria that have evolved to metabolize Nylon. That's new information right there!

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
God got caught up in a time-sharing scam.

2. Where did matter come from?
It was hiding just underneath the mind.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Senate Resolution 48H

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
The Dewey Decimal system

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
It was requisitioned from Santa's elves.

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
March 27th, 3:41 pm, its name was "Brian"

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
I'm not sure it ever actually did, but singles.com is a good place to start.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Ron Jeremy

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
Ask the Irish.


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Careful marketing plans combined with low-cost insurance.


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
Only if you prefer form over function.

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
Beaurocrats.

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)See #6
2. Single-celled animals evolve?Never in mixed company
3. Fish change to amphibians?Medical science is amazing
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?They're trying to block this in Congress
5. Reptiles change to birds? See #13.2
6. How did the intermediate forms live?Mostly as share croppers

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve? They didn't. Whales come from space as is and are assembled in plants outside of Tokyo
2. Sea horses evolve?You should see the polo matches
3. Bats evolve?They came out of backlash from a 60s movement
4. Ears evolve?The better to hear you with, my dear
5. Eyes evolve?Ask the Irish
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?I didn't see those on the menu. Does it come with salad?

15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.The egg
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?Love should not require batteries
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?Mixing gasses in a crowded elevator is rude.
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?I think Bell Industries developed RNA while working on stereograms.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?Now that's just nasty
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?You should drink more beer.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?Boneless chickens are strange birds.
8. The immune system or the need for it?Germs are a myth.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
It beats the alternative.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
Well it is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Ask Dick Cheney

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.

You've obviously stayed up too late reading the bible, and then completely slept through science class.
Behe is a crackpot sensationalist, the very messenger of the propoganda you speak of. He's a joke in the scientific community.
Please research the HIV virus to find evidence of evolution, observed in action.
BTW, life need not spontaneously generate. Ever hear of the theory of panspermia???
Life may just be a virus that is almost as old as the universe, spread like a virus itself. D'oh! We no longer need any trivial explaination such as "spontaneus bullshit generation".
Evolutions starting point may be much farther behind than your little mind can wrap itself around., and probably does not originate here on earth.
The flat earth society still has an opening, I suggest you hurry.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
God got caught up in a time-sharing scam.

2. Where did matter come from?
It was hiding just underneath the mind.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Senate Resolution 48H

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
The Dewey Decimal system

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
It was requisitioned from Santa's elves.

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
March 27th, 3:41 pm, its name was "Brian"

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
I'm not sure it ever actually did, but singles.com is a good place to start.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Ron Jeremy

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
Ask the Irish.


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Careful marketing plans combined with low-cost insurance.


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
Only if you prefer form over function.

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
Beaurocrats.

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)See #6
2. Single-celled animals evolve?Never in mixed company
3. Fish change to amphibians?Medical science is amazing
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?They're trying to block this in Congress
5. Reptiles change to birds? See #13.2
6. How did the intermediate forms live?Mostly as share croppers

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve? They didn't. Whales come from space as is and are assembled in plants outside of Tokyo
2. Sea horses evolve?You should see the polo matches
3. Bats evolve?They came out of backlash from a 60s movement
4. Ears evolve?The better to hear you with, my dear
5. Eyes evolve?Ask the Irish
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?I didn't see those on the menu. Does it come with salad?

15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.The egg
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?Love should not require batteries
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?Mixing gasses in a crowded elevator is rude.
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?I think Bell Industries developed RNA while working on stereograms.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?Now that's just nasty
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?You should drink more beer.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?Boneless chickens are strange birds.
8. The immune system or the need for it?Germs are a myth.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
It beats the alternative.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
Well it is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Ask Dick Cheney

Funny. :p

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
God got caught up in a time-sharing scam.

2. Where did matter come from?
It was hiding just underneath the mind.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Senate Resolution 48H

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
The Dewey Decimal system

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
It was requisitioned from Santa's elves.

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
March 27th, 3:41 pm, its name was "Brian"

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
I'm not sure it ever actually did, but singles.com is a good place to start.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Ron Jeremy

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
Ask the Irish.


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Careful marketing plans combined with low-cost insurance.


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
Only if you prefer form over function.

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
Beaurocrats.

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)See #6
2. Single-celled animals evolve?Never in mixed company
3. Fish change to amphibians?Medical science is amazing
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?They're trying to block this in Congress
5. Reptiles change to birds? See #13.2
6. How did the intermediate forms live?Mostly as share croppers

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve? They didn't. Whales come from space as is and are assembled in plants outside of Tokyo
2. Sea horses evolve?You should see the polo matches
3. Bats evolve?They came out of backlash from a 60s movement
4. Ears evolve?The better to hear you with, my dear
5. Eyes evolve?Ask the Irish
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?I didn't see those on the menu. Does it come with salad?

15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.The egg
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?Love should not require batteries
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?Mixing gasses in a crowded elevator is rude.
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?I think Bell Industries developed RNA while working on stereograms.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?Now that's just nasty
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?You should drink more beer.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?Boneless chickens are strange birds.
8. The immune system or the need for it?Germs are a myth.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
It beats the alternative.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
Well it is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Ask Dick Cheney

cant type...too funny...cant breath...must evolve...

Funny. :p

Well I try. :D My knowledge of biology could be placed on 1/2 a page of large type, but I didn't want to feel left out.

I'm a Muslim that believes in evolution.

Just wanted to say that

lol

Are you denying that additions occur?

Look it up in your 'advanced biology' book.

Down's syndrome, in which they have 3 copies of the 21st chromosome, but it's copy, not an entirely new one. But I'm not talking about chromosomes. I'm talking about genes.

We JUST studied this. I see deletion, duplication, inversion, and translocation.

why ont they give us any evidence? i feel left out...wait they dont have any darn

I believe a prevailing theory is that some of the biologically-related elements such as carbon, nitrogen, etc. bonded with help from external energy (heat from the Earth, lightning, etc.) and formed some very simple amino acids, which eventually combined on a slippery slope to create life. Or something like that.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.

actually it can, through mutations. That happens to everybody, but when those mutations survive to reproduce and pass on the genetic code that made them different, that is evolution, as the race is changed. That is just what happens. EVERYBODY gets mutated in some way, when those cells survive to propagate their differences that's evolution.

I'm ok with people thinking that God created them, I really am, but don't say that you have science on your side. You don't. You have faith.

Example: Humans living in Bolivia have been found to have one more red blood cell than others from other regions. This is due to the high elevation at which they live. One human some years ago developed a mutation that allowed for he/she to have one more red blood cell than other humans. Due to the fact that this extra blood cell helps to supply oxygen to the body better, and due to the fact that these people lived at an altitude in which the air was so thin that oxygen was a problem, this deviation survived and was eventually passed on to everybody in the region. This is evolution. Documented evolution.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.


Actually, what scientists are now coming to believe - especially James Lovelock's contemporary, Margulis (who studies microbiology I believe) is that symbiotic evolution is how things got started. What is believed to have happened, is that primordial prokaryotic cells entered into a symbiotic relationship with eurkayotic life-forms - bacteria. It is from the invasion of, and subsequently mutually beneficial relationship, between certain bacteria and prokaryotes, that life forms evolved. One of the most widely known symbiotic events of this kind was the symbiosis of the prokaryotic cell and the bacteria that became mitochondria - its bacterial heritage evidenced by the single DNA strand, RNA on the cell membrane I believe, and the tail like flagella, found only on bacterial cells.

This also means, that the idea of one common ancestor is false. There must have been at least two, if not more than two, common ancestral cells that came together in the mutually beneficial relationship which precludes the evolution of most life on this planet up until this very date.

Google "Lovelock, Margulis, symbiosis, evolution" for further information.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.Another religious fanatic trolling for flame.

You have to be incredibly gullible to truly believe evolution doesn't "hold water", and that the creationism "message" of your particular brand of christianity is "supported by the facts".

I refuse to get dragged into another "discussion" with a religious fanatic about creationism. All that happens is you refuse to listen, and continue to spout nonsense.

Down's syndrome, in which they have 3 copies of the 21st chromosome, but it's copy, not an entirely new one. But I'm not talking about chromosomes. I'm talking about genes.

We JUST studied this. I see deletion, duplication, inversion, and translocation.
You're thinking of chromsomes, not DNA. Read the chapter about DNA/RNA duplication, genes-to-proteins and such. Should be one ahead.

start with Down's syndrome then deletion then translocation.

wow you got yourself a whole new string of DNA and didnt have to add a thing, it did it on its own thanks Haloman

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

That isnt evolution

2. Where did matter come from?

again, not evolution

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

see above

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

again

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

wow.... do you know what you are arguing against?

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?

... getting warmer?

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

easy, if it didnt it wouldnt have kept going. life would have ended there.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

... not a bad question... im not a biologist, so ill leave it to people who know

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

it has to.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Mutations provide changes that would become more adapted to a rapidly changing environment.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?

if the proof was there, but its not, these questions do not count as proof

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?

mutation

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)

by where i assume you mean fossilized evidence. this is extremly rare, especially with regards to the face that this happened in the ocean over 5 billion years

2. Single-celled animals evolve?

see above

3. Fish change to amphibians?

during the period after plants first started growing on land, various fish species living in shallow reeded regions that had developed both lungs and "shoulder" type bones would come onto land. Eventually some would be better adapted to stay on land while others stayed in the water.

4. Amphibians change to reptiles?

some of these amphibians developed certain functions that made them better suited to life on land.

5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

lol

millions of years, large climate change. The information is readily available on the internet but is also very breathy, so i will not try to put it here.

6. How did the intermediate forms live?

How? are you suggesting that the intermediate forms would be incapable of life? an amphibian can be said to be a intermediate form of fish and reptile.

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?

bears in shallow water developed mutations that made life in the water more suitable than life on land. the "missing link" in this evolution has been found.

2. Sea horses evolve?

why is it improbable that sea horses would evolve?

3. Bats evolve?

again, why is this improbable?

4. Ears evolve?

there are hollow places in the skull of reptles that picks up vibrations, mammillian ears are a more advanced form of this.

5. Eyes evolve?

there is doccumentation of over 7 differant types of eyes evolving. The compact eye and the mammal eye have differant origins. feel free to look them up

6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

mutations that proved useful to the survival or procreation of the species. these are all doccumented and readily available in periodicals. these are all examples of survival of the fittest

15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):


in all of these situations you have described paradoxes that really dont explain much. if a creature developed stomach acid and had no resistance, it would die and not pass that along.

most evolutions are adaptations of already present traits into new funtions that they had not been used for previously.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

why is evolution not capable of explaining this relationship

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?

that question does nothing to disprove evolution, only asks weather it is the only explination for what has happened.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.


lol, those are sociology and psychology, not evolution

This is from a scientific standpoint.

Yeah, just like a kid that says "the thunder is God going bowling" is saying it from a scientific standpoint.

First of all, evolution can prove itself wrong. Natural selection, and survival of the fittest say that species will change for the better to adapt to their environments. That's all well and true. The theory of evolution says that reptiles evolved over millions of years into birds. Ok. But what of the intermediate forms? The reptile would have had to, over millions of years, gradullay develop wings, feathers, etc. So, these intermediate forms of the reptile-bird don't have wings, but nubs. But it doesn't do the reptile any good. They're changing, but the wings/ nubs wouldn't do any better than regular limbs...so how would the ones without nubs get killed off by natural selection if they're doing just as well as those with them? It doesn't add up.

(a) Partial wings *would* help, as they would allow the animal to jump farther/hover after prey.
(b) The other animals, as long as they were doing as well, would not get killed off by natural selection. However, over the course of many, many generations and mutations (as the wings became more developed), they would no longer be doing just as well.

Your problem is that you are not thinking on a large time scale. We are not talking about 2 or 3 generations here.

In fact, Scienctists can't prove that one letter of genetic code can be added. You can't just have mutations, and add genetic code. It doesn't work that way. Mutations only change the genetic code.

This is patently untrue and demonstrates your utter ignorance of the subject. Please study a bit more before attempting to talk with the adults.

Answer these questions, please, if you can.

Sure.

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is: does it provide answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory, it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Below are a few of the questions that should be answered.

Wow, we get to see just how little understanding you have of the theory.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Irrelevant to evolution.

2. Where did matter come from?

Irrelevant to evolution.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Irrelevant to evolution.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Not sure what you are asking, but it sounds like a question outside of evolution.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Irrelevant to evolution.

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?

Irrelevant to evolution. Also, it would not have come from "dead" matter as something which is dead was once alive. There is a theory called abiogenesis, but it is separate from evolution.

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

See above.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Sexual reproduction most likely evolved out of the common strategy of bacteria in which they connect and share genetic material ((which is only one of the ways in which genetic material can be added, by the way)).

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

You do realize that plants and animals are not immortal, right?

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

I would have to teach you biochemistry to explain this. But we'll take it at the most basic level.

Suppose you have a three amino acid protein (yes, this is way too small, but nevermind that). We'll call it APE and say that it performs the function X. A transcription error causes the gene to be copied. Now we have APEAPE and can make more of the protein. However, since we only needed one gene for that protein, the other can mutate without damaging the organism. The mutation leads to APEARE. ARE performs a new function that helps the organism survive (Y). THe organism can reproduce more and we get organisms in the next generation with proteins that do both X and Y.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?

It is not possible that it *proves* anything.

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?

See above.

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)

There probably were no two/three celled intermediates, as multi-cellular organisms most likely developed out of large colonies of single-celled organisms which became more and more specialized over time.

2. Single-celled animals evolve?

Look in a biology book.

3. Fish change to amphibians?

WHen - look it up.
Why - new niche
How - Fish were able to breathe for a little while on land. This helped them so they survived. ((There are fish even today like this))

4. Amphibians change to reptiles?

When/Why - see above
How - mutation and natural selection.

5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

If you don't know what the theory of evolution says, why are you asking? Wings most likely developed first. THen feathers - which isn't a huge leap from scales. The reproductive organs aren't really all that different in the scheme of things, nor are the eyes. The lungs, hollow bones, etc. developed because they helped the new animals survive.

6. How did the intermediate forms live?

The same way all the others did.

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Ears evolve?
5. Eyes evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?

Most of this is explained in the theory. WHy don't you read up on it?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

(a) Really? Name one.
(b) We don't. We teach the truth - that it is the most likely explanation we have based on all available evidence at this time - the same as *any* accepted scientific theory.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?

Evolution would explain it the same way as all of the above. A mutation made an organism look more like a dangerous one - it got left alone so passed on its genes more.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Actually, there is no reason to believe that they would not - as rudimentary forms of all of them can be seen in most social animals as aids to survival.

Ya fail. Nice try, though. You still can't add genetic information. By the way, I'm in advanced biology, so I know the theory well enough.

0/10.

Whoa, advanced biology!

Jesus Christ, you must know anything and everything about the universe because you’re in AP bio! Let me get down on hands and knees and kiss your ass, fountain of all knowledge!

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I have found someone who is enrolled in an above average High School Biology class, and he is the MOST BRILLIANT MAN ALIVE, BAR NONE!

Look no farther for the END ALL BE ALL OF THE UNIVERSE!

Curiouser and curiouser...


1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Ears evolve?
5. Eyes evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Source:http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheFalseReligionofEvolution.htm

Most of this is just daft - evolution is a theory which accounts for biological complexity arising from smaller organisms. Its not a complete metaphysical system, which is why a lot of these questions are irrelevant, it isn't trying to replace christianity, it isn't trying to explain the origins of matter or space. I suggest you get a book on cosmology.

That leaves a few things; the issue of potentially infinite complexity arising from limited materials, and distinct organs evolving, and symbiosis. I'm ignoring the really dim questions like where we got an immune system from, don't make yourself look sillier.

Right - complexity. Genetic code is whats known as a discrete combinatorial system, which means that genetic information (which just doesn't tend towards stability, I don't know where you got that from) is limited in type but can yield an infinite diversity. Its the same way a limited amount of words in english can produce an infinite amount of sentences.

Secondly - distinct organs. There is a very good article by Richard Dawkins (I will give that reference and many more to anyone actually interested) which explains how something seemingly unique and incapable of being created by evolution. It takes the example of an eye - showing how photosensitive cells can evolve first by a process of natural selection (thats been done in petri dishes), how groupings of such cells develop, how they increase in size and efficiency, and how muscular contraction around the area develops in order to shut out light when it wants to (an eyelid). Thats a very brief summary - its no accident that I can't explain a billion year process in one paragraph. I promise you it can be done though, there are textbooks detailing methods for this, bones, ligaments, the brain (and that one is the toughie) and even sexual reproduction.

Finally, symbiosis. It's late so I'll make this quick: parallel evolution.

There are lots and lots of textbooks out there dealing with the transition (for example) to potazoa from complex amino proteins and so on and so forth, and with all of the rest of these pseudo-scientific problems.

Evolution is not an attempt to replace religion. It coexists perfectly happily with plenty of christian faiths. It is simply an explanation for biological complexity without recourse to foolish dogmatism.

Merry christmas all.

Ya fail. Nice try, though. You still can't add genetic information. By the way, I'm in advanced biology, so I know the theory well enough.

0/10.

If you haven't learned this in "advanced biology," you go to a sad school indeed.

Of course, I just love it when the high schoolers want to act like they have a great grasp of *any* science, when at the very best they have a passing grasp of the very basics.

Perhaps you should go back to the playground, dahling.

Whoa, advanced biology!

Jesus Christ, you must know anything and everything about the universe because you’re in AP bio! Let me get down on hands and knees and kiss your ass, fountain of all knowledge!

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I have found someone who is enrolled in an above average High School Biology class, and he is the MOST BRILLIANT MAN ALIVE, BAR NONE!

Look no farther for the END ALL BE ALL OF THE UNIVERSE!
I didn't read AP bio into that, I read honors bio.

If he isn't on DNA/RNA yet, he's in trouble when May rolls around.

Hello, Kettle? This is Pot.
This is Pot calling Kettle. Black, are you receiving?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Evolution is like democracy. It sucks as a system but all the other systems suck way more.

Well I try. :D My knowledge of biology could be placed on 1/2 a page of large type, but I didn't want to feel left out.

And yet you still demonstrate that you know much more than Haloman. Funny, that.

It's right about Etrusca. :eek:

Baaaazzziiinnnnnnggg!!!

^.*

Yer right about that.

I'm not going to bother reading much of this thread; I just wanted to respond with a face to that comment by Vittos.

I believe a prevailing theory is that some of the biologically-related elements such as carbon, nitrogen, etc. bonded with help from external energy (heat from the Earth, lightning, etc.) and formed some very simple amino acids, which eventually combined on a slippery slope to create life. Or something like that.

That's more or less it. They've actually manage to simulate it in a chamber designed to be as much like earth at that time period as possible. Last I head they haven't gotten anything one would consider life (or even life-like), but they have worked their way to to amino acides and I believe some proteins.

To get real life that way in a lab would be virtually impossible, as the tank would have to be the size of the planet, and they'd probably need to let it run for a many millions of years.

What they've done in the lab, combined with computer modelling, does support that life can come into being from lifeless material. The odds aren't very good, (to say the least), but if you keep the conditions right long enough, eventually it should occur.

I find it so hillarious that the perpetrators of *intelligent design* find nothing on their own to prove their own theory.
They only seem to have the ability to attempt to dismantle the information presented by science. Any request to provide sufficient evidence for their own theory (evidence!) is met with more dismantling and, at best, pseudoscientific tripe better suited for philosophy classes.
Where's the real evidence FOR your theory, not against another?

... pseudoscientific tripe better suited for philosophy classes.

Hey! I resent that! I'm a philosophy major and I can assure you I'll gleefully stomp on all sorts of pseudoscientific tripe just as much as anybody else.

I find it so hillarious that the perpetrators of *intelligent design* find nothing on their own to prove their own theory.
They only seem to have the ability to attempt to dismantle the information presented by science. Any request to provide sufficient evidence for their own theory (evidence!) is met with more dismantling and, at best, pseudoscientific tripe better suited for philosophy classes.
Where's the real evidence FOR your theory, not against another?

Teh biblez0rz, of course :p

Hey! I resent that! I'm a philosophy major and I can assure you I'll gleefully stomp on all sorts of pseudoscientific tripe just as much as anybody else.
A voice of reason in the darkness that is subjective thought. How are you one step ahead of these would-be *scientists* when your major is almost science's obverse? Give yourself a pat on the back, you're already more of a scientist than the prponents of *intelligent* design!

And yet you still demonstrate that you know much more than Haloman. Funny, that.

Well ... I have kids. I mean ... I can clearly see that none of the kids look exactly like me or my wife or any member of the respective families, but rather like a combination of such things.

If such vast change can happen in a single generation, I can use my imagination to fill in what 20,000 generations can do.

Eichen, I'm with you, but they will not because they dont have any other then one book, a good book, one that some should follow to have a happer life, but a book with no evidence

And yet you still demonstrate that you know much more than Haloman. Funny, that.

That long list of questions come from another website, not me. I understand and grasp the concept. I don't see why people have so much respect for you. You're a bitch. And with that, I'm done with NS, because all of you are as hard-headed as a priest at a playground.

Evolutionism isn't anti-god, it proves that things evolve, plain and simple. As for the questions like "where does matter come from" - fuck it, leave that to the astrophyisists and other scientists. Being pro-evolution isn't anti-god and anybody who is going to make the case that god trumps science because of *facts* not faith is a nutjob. science gets stuff wrong, but it corrects itself. That is what happens when people searching for new answers work hard enough. Christianity is based on a millenia-old tome that has not been edited to compensate for the shifting times, it is only reinterpreted.

Furthermore, does anybody have a single *scientific* point to make that would support creationism?

Even if the idea of a primordial soup seems hard to grasp, consider this, life is only a collection of elements. given the right materials and enough time, humans could make a cell, or even a human being for that matter. Creationism does not account for the entire reign of the dinosaurs, trillobites, and countless other species that we KNOW came before humanity by *millions* of years.
The bible says that the lord created the world in seven days, we now know that is not true, the world was created by a combination of stellar materials orbiting around the sun and colliding with each other until there was a sufficient mass so as to generate a gravitational pull that would collect more of these materials into the planet Earth. If anybody is still going to say that the lord created the world in seven days, they can have faith in that belief, but not science. This example is representative of our current dilemma. The church has been wrong on countless occasions *scientifically,* but not in its devotion to faith.

Teh biblez0rz, of course :p
Oh man, how did I miss that milestone in scientific evolution?
I need to seriously rethink my view as it's obviously askew.

Oh man, how did I miss that milestone in scientific evolution?
I need to seriously rethink my view as it's obviously askew.

You better. The OMFGHELLFIREZ is waiting for you!

That long list of questions come from another website, not me. I understand and grasp the concept. I don't see why people have so much respect for you. You're a bitch. And with that, I'm done with NS, because all of you are as hard-headed as a priest at a playground.

Quit whining! Only 300-something posts and you're outta here?
Hell, I'm a libertarian and take shit from both sides all the time, but I'll piss back, not stomp out. Have some conviction.
There's a lot to be learned here from everyone, and I'm sure you have things worth adding. Just stick around long enough to see, and you might find that you can be both a sadist and a masochist on forums like this.
'Tis both fun to give and recieve.

That long list of questions come from another website, not me. I understand and grasp the concept.

So you were too lazy to go through the questions and see that most of them don't even relate to evolution, and the ones that do are quite clearly explained within the theory?

Or maybe, you only have a grade-to-high-school grasp of the concept (which would be the most likely, since you are in high school) and thus don't understand it yourself.

One way or another, your willingness to ask questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hands puts you in one of two categories:
1 - A troll.
2 - Ignorant of the topic at hand.

I'll let you tell us which one you are.

I don't see why people have so much respect for you. You're a bitch.

I apologize that I can't stand to see people with no idea what they are talking about claim to be "experts" in my profession. Your "I know exactly what I'm talking about because I am in an advanced high school class" is like a 5 year old saying they understand algebra because they can add 2 + 2.

And with that, I'm done with NS, because all of you are as hard-headed as a priest at a playground.

Demonstrate *anything* even remotely approaching science, and I will listen.

That long list of questions come from another website, not me. I understand and grasp the concept. I don't see why people have so much respect for you. You're a bitch. And with that, I'm done with NS, because all of you are as hard-headed as a priest at a playground.
Rofl. <3 Dempublicents.

I apologize that I can't stand to see people with no idea what they are talking about claim to be "experts" in my profession. Your "I know exactly what I'm talking about because I am in an advanced high school class" is like a 5 year old saying they understand algebra because they can add 2 + 2.
Hey you fucker, you singed my eyebrows!
I could feel the burn from here.

I WORSHIP SATAN!

HUMANS HAVE NO PURPOSE. WE ARE JUST ANIMALS AND EVERYTHING WE DO RELATES BACK TO SEX SO OUR RACE CAN CONTINUE TO RUN AROUND. THINK ABOUT IT.

Wanting to look good - trying to attract the other sex
Music, art, ext. - impress the other sex
Eating - staying alive so we can have sex
Anger - wanting to win, because the winner has sex

IF U FREAKS TAKE 5 MINS TO THINK ABOUT IT, EVERYTHING WE DO IS SO WE CAN HAVE SEX.
JESUS IS A LIE!
GOD IS A LIE!
THE CHURCH JUST MADE THEM UP SO THEY COULD GET RICH, AND THEN HAVE SEX!!!

That long list of questions come from another website, not me. I understand and grasp the concept. I don't see why people have so much respect for you. You're a bitch. And with that, I'm done with NS, because all of you are as hard-headed as a priest at a playground.

does being a dumbass make you cranky? no i'm jus joking, seriously don't hate me. DON'T HATE ME FOR WHO I AM.

ok i'm done

So if creationist belive there is no evidence for evolution and that genetic material can't be added.. how do they argue resistant bacterial colonies ?

I WORSHIP SATAN!

HUMANS HAVE NO PURPOSE. WE ARE JUST ANIMALS AND EVERYTHING WE DO RELATES BACK TO SEX SO OUR RACE CAN CONTINUE TO RUN AROUND. THINK ABOUT IT.

Wanting to look good - trying to attract the other sex
Music, art, ext. - impress the other sex
Eating - staying alive so we can have sex
Anger - wanting to win, because the winner has sex

IF U FREAKS TAKE 5 MINS TO THINK ABOUT IT, EVERYTHING WE DO IS SO WE CAN HAVE SEX.
JESUS IS A LIE!
GOD IS A LIE!
THE CHURCH JUST MADE THEM UP SO THEY COULD GET RICH, AND THEN HAVE SEX!!!

What, you have a problem with sex or something?

And you might want to check your Caps Lock key. I think yours is stuck.

That long list of questions come from another website, not me. I understand and grasp the concept. I don't see why people have so much respect for you. You're a bitch. And with that, I'm done with NS, because all of you are as hard-headed as a priest at a playground.

Do you think you could bitch a little bit more, kid?

i can't believe all of you put so much effort into convincing one person in advanced bio high school that he's wrong.
also: i'm taking all advanced class (well except like health...) in high school, and let me tell you, sometimes you really wonder how ppl got in those classes. there's like the SMART smart people, who don't have to work hard. then there's the average people who do insane amounts of work to keep up, but it takes them forever to get anything...so just being in advanced bio doesn't even mean you're all that intelligent.

Well ... I have kids. I mean ... I can clearly see that none of the kids look exactly like me or my wife or any member of the respective families, but rather like a combination of such things.

If such vast change can happen in a single generation, I can use my imagination to fill in what 20,000 generations can do.

Actually, if you want an area where we can see it in action, just check out diseases.

There are new diseases cropping up with some degree of regularity, which are really just older ones that have evolved abit. And, of course, you've got the drug-resistant bacteria (aka. the "suprebugs").

Evolution is fairly fast when the lifeform in question measures it's generations in minutes.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.


wow I hope you're being sarcastic.

Tooooo get back on topic. I agree with the theory of evolution.

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens—and that’s not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists’ work. This only goes to show how we may not have an answer to why Evolution started yet, but we do know that it exists. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that we evolved rather than some bored diety decided he was going to make a species and in 7 days, some sparkles and a puff of smoke here and there, suddenly we exist. I don't refute the catholic beliefs, I just prefer a more existentialist outlook on life. You don;t have to agree with me... We can Agree to disagree on this issue

Sincerely
The King of Andrettia

If there's one thing I've learned about life, it's that it is determined to do the impossible. I read once that bumblebees can't fly, which is true. Apparently the bumblebees are too stubborn to read it and succumb to physics. If the bumblebee can't fly yet does anyway, who's to say that cells don't evolve even though it's impossible. A whole hell of a lot of crazy stuff happens, so who's to say that life isn't one of them?

Haloman is a dumbass really, so don't take to account what he said. He certaintly has never been to 8th grade Biology where they teach you all you need to know abotu DNA.
First off:
1. DNA is made up of proteins, when different combinations of these proteins combine, it makes a new genetic code and therefore resulting in a new species the next time that organism reproduces.
2. There are particles that bombard our DNA everyday coming from outerspace, breaking off a section of that DNA, and as the DNA strand rebuilds itself; the genetic code is different.
3. Radiation needs to be taken into account. When radiation rays blast through our bodies, they sometimes misconfigure our genetic code and cause mutations. Since cochroaches are less-complex, these mutations are easily accepted into their code and no harm is done.

In conclusion, it is possible to spontaneously create new genetic codes out of nowhere simply from removing a certain piece. Scientists have already done it. Once completeing the genetic code, they knew what to remove and what to add. That is how you got monkeys that glow in the dark. Look into that if you did not know :)

Furthermore, does anybody have a single *scientific* point to make that would support creationism?

I suspect the "evidence" for that is akin to the line that "technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." We don't understand it, therefore there must be a divine being involved.

Haloman is a dumbass really, so don't take to account what he said. He certaintly has never been to 8th grade Biology where they teach you all you need to know abotu DNA.
First off:
1. DNA is made up of proteins, when different combinations of these proteins combine, it makes a new genetic code and therefore resulting in a new species the next time that organism reproduces.
2. There are particles that bombard our DNA everyday coming from outerspace, breaking off a section of that DNA, and as the DNA strand rebuilds itself; the genetic code is different.
3. Radiation needs to be taken into account. When radiation rays blast through our bodies, they sometimes misconfigure our genetic code and cause mutations. Since cochroaches are less-complex, these mutations are easily accepted into their code and no harm is done.

In conclusion, it is possible to spontaneously create new genetic codes out of nowhere simply from removing a certain piece. Scientists have already done it. Once completeing the genetic code, they knew what to remove and what to add. That is how you got monkeys that glow in the dark. Look into that if you did not know :)
O.o

If there's one thing I've learned about life, it's that it is determined to do the impossible. I read once that bumblebees can't fly, which is true. Apparently the bumblebees are too stubborn to read it and succumb to physics. If the bumblebee can't fly yet does anyway, who's to say that cells don't evolve even though it's impossible. A whole hell of a lot of crazy stuff happens, so who's to say that life isn't one of them?


Well Said, very well said I agree with you and I've read that as well about bumblebees. Another example was the European Pepper moth, Their genetic code was altered to produce not only moths with white hair but moths with black hair. This was a mutation.. but the black pepper moths were being more easily spotted by prey and eaten.. ( Darwins theory) Then when Pollution began the trees bark around factorys became black with soot and the moths could land on the trees..in this case the light coloured moths were being more easily spotted and eaten.. After time the dark moths became a new species, some say proximity to the factories caused it, I say it was evolution.

Down's syndrome, in which they have 3 copies of the 21st chromosome, but it's copy, not an entirely new one. But I'm not talking about chromosomes. I'm talking about genes.

We JUST studied this. I see deletion, duplication, inversion, and translocation.

TRANSDUCTION! Viruses implant information in us and any other thing they infect all the damn time sometimes in HUGE amounts (their entire genome thanks to the induction of LTR-containing genomes - LTR = Long Terminal Repeat). And yes FRAME SHIFT MUTATIONS as well add genetic info.

I don't care if someone mentions this later on. I had to say something now or my head was gonna explode.

I have to hit my biochem books again. I'm getting nostalgic and this is also beginning to affect me on a personal level.

If there's one thing I've learned about life, it's that it is determined to do the impossible. I read once that bumblebees can't fly, which is true. Apparently the bumblebees are too stubborn to read it and succumb to physics. If the bumblebee can't fly yet does anyway, who's to say that cells don't evolve even though it's impossible. A whole hell of a lot of crazy stuff happens, so who's to say that life isn't one of them?

You're out of date, they figured out how it works. It took chaos math to figure it out mind you...

For info on just how wacky chromosomes can be I submit this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15534209&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000

You see. having lots of chromosomes doesn't mean you are defective. Poliploidy is normal in a lot of life forms and I don't see what would prevent one chromosome from changing into another chromosome with different characteristics over time.

Whether or not this can happen in humans without serious defects arising is an interesting question that should be looked into. I know we can have people who have XXX or XYY or XXY sex chromosomes and still be able to reproduce so I wouldn't be surprised if autosomal chromosomes are gathered from mutant sex chromosomes. If you look at the human karyotype the autosomal chromosomes look a LOT like either the X or Y chromosomes. Just a guess. I don't have proof or anything.

Well ... I have kids. I mean ... I can clearly see that none of the kids look exactly like me or my wife or any member of the respective families, but rather like a combination of such things.

If such vast change can happen in a single generation, I can use my imagination to fill in what 20,000 generations can do.

Umm...wifey faithful? :p

1. Where did the space for the universe come from? The space or potential for space from energy could have always existed. Infinite regress of the Universe is not impossible. The multiple universes theory is also an excellent potential explanation
2. Where did matter come from? Same answer as 1. Energy to create matter may have always existed
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? The laws of the universe may be the Uncaused cause just as easily as God.
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? Matter is so perfectly organized because if it weren't you wouldn't be able to tell that it was organized. The multiple universes theory proposes that matter must be organized well enough in some universes (ours) that rational beings can study it.
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? The energy could have always existed. Infinite regress of energy is not impossible. Also, the total energy in the universe might be zero at all times, with some areas (ours) having highly positive energy and others having negative energy.
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter? Abiogenesis has not been proven impossible. Scientists are still working on it.
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself? The combination of chemicals that make living creatures by their nature reproduce themselves. The question is how did life form in the first place. Scientists have not ruled out abiogenesis. Many Christians have.
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? The first cell capable of sexual reproduction likely did not reproduce sexually. However, when two cells of different species (so that sexual reproduction would be usefull) with this mutation finally met, their offspring had such an advantage (being naturally selected quicker because of constant changes in the species potential genes) that they dominated very quickly.
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? Evolution does not imply that individual organisms will try to live as long as possible because these organisms would fail at this and the species would cease to exist. Instead it implies that individual organisms will contribute to the furtherance of their own species, because species in which this occurs have a greater chance of continuing to survive.
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Mutations are not recombinations of the genetic code (that's simply what happens in sexual reproduction) they are changes in the code itself.
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?Yes. It is also possible that similarities reflect parallel evolution. We don't want to jump to conclusions by declaring one of these correct before we have proof.
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code? Increased complexity in the genetic code occurs because of mutations, which are changes in the genetic code. Species with complex genetic code are more apt to survive because they can hold more information in their code.
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?) A lack of two-celled intermediate organisms would not necessarily disprove evolution. These organisms didn't survive because they have neither the advantages of micro-organisms (the ability to reproduce quickly, which two-celled organisms lack because the two cells would have to "coordinate" the reproduction process, which would be less efficient) nor the advantages of macro-organisms (having organs that specialize life processes making the organism as a whole more efficient).
2. Single-celled animals evolve? The sponge is the link. The sponge is essentially a colony of bacteria but in many ways it is also an animal. The bacteria in a sponge coordinate their behavior, but they can survive alone. Eventually, some sponges evolved into animals that have cells that coordinate behavior but cannot survive alone because the cells of the animals specialized in the different life processes.
3. Fish change to amphibians? A series of mutations that were advantageous to the mutated new species. Lung fish are an excellent example. They are fish capable of living out of water for long periods of time.
4. Amphibians change to reptiles? Shouldn't seem like a big jump.
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) Although no intermediate species exists, there is not much difference between the genetic coding of scales and feathers. A small mutation of the genetic coding could have developed the feathers right away without an intermediary. Same for the other systems.
6. How did the intermediate forms live? The intermediate forms lived because the even higher forms had not yet evolved. In order for a species to evolve into another, that second species must be more capable of survival. Therefore, intermediate species survived at the time they did because they were more efficient than the predecessors; but they do not survive into today because they are less efficient than their heirs.
14. When, where, why, how and from what did: I'll answer each of these with a link I got from google because you are asking for so much information so quickly.
1. Whales evolve? click here (http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/coasts/whales/biol.html)
2. Sea horses evolve? click here (http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/pubs/Casey_etal2004.pdf)
3. Bats evolve? click here (http://www.fathom.com/course/21701775/session1.html)
4. Ears evolve? click here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html)
5. Eyes evolve? click here (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15595)
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? click here (http://bll.epnet.com/externalframe.asp?tb=0&_ug=sid+D08EA9BF%2DAB6D%2D42EA%2D9C68%2DEE6CB562C90A%40sessionmgr4+6181&_us=SLsrc+ext+or+Date+034D&_usmtl=ftv+True+137E&_uso=hd+False+db%5B0+%2Daph+1BEE&fi=aph_10075232_AN&lpdf=true&pdfs=&tn=&tp=PC&es=cs%5Fclient%2Easp%3FT%3DP%26P%3DAN%26K%3D10075232%26rn%3D1%26db%3Daph%26is%3D0906%2D6705%26sc%3D% 26S%3D%26D%3Daph%26title%3DExperimental%2BDermatology%26year%3D2003%26bk%3DS&fn=1&rn=1&bk=S&EBSCOContent=ZWJjY7zl7XePqK9rs9via6Gmr3+PprGFpKe5fp+WxpjDpfKDp6y1fKGrrbjQ3+151N7uvuMA&an=10075232&db=aph&)
click here (http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/)
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others): Symbiotic relationships between species exist because they help the species not because the species needed them to exist at the time the relationship evolved (they may have later developed a reliance on the relationship, though. Nothing particularly disfavors a species that relies on something that it has.) The answers to the other questions here are: 1. the food to be digested because food does not require an eater to evolve. Then the digestive system without a stomach (the food is broken apart by individual cells) then a stomach which was resistant to the digestive juices (a failed stomach may have also evolved from a seperate mutation, but this wouldn't survive). 2. Simple Organisms (and plants) reproduce for the same reasons that certain atoms tend to bond together, desire is not necessary, only ability. Animals need desire to reproduce, but they also have sensing organs that can feel good during sexual reproduction. The mixture of gases, because the planet has had this same mixture for quite some time and it is beneficial to most life here, not just life with lungs. Given enough planets (and universes) this combination of gases is likely. Then the throat because it is advantageous for fish without lungs. Then lungs because extra mucus was not necessary for the lung-fish which generally has at least some water in its environment (it can't survive in the dessert, it survives breathing outside of water in wet land environments like a muddy creek bed). Then the mucus. 4. Either. But when they met with the other components of the cell (which is reasonable in the same way that other complex compounds forming is reasonable -- certain elements tend to bond in certain ways. Carbon and carbon compounds tend to bond in ways that make exergonic reacting, self-replicating mixtures of compounds called cells) 7. Repair system first -- every cell has its own. Then blood supply -- as soon as creatures thicker than two levels of cells developed, these creatures needed a way to get water to the middle cells. Then shells for protection. Then muscles before shells started to get in the way of movement (which was by flagella and other cellular methods before that). Then bones to give more direction to the way muscles move the body (shells aren't very good for this). Then tendons to form better attachments to bones. Then ligaments when skeletal structure became complex enough to have joints. Then the nervous system, which evolved from different circumstances, but took longer because it is more complex. Then hormones as a more efficient way for the nervous system to control bodily functions.
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships? Same as earlier explanation of symbiotic relationships.
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design? Plants and animals mimic one another vaguely, not exactly. It would disprove evolution if a stick bug actually became a stick; but having long, thin appendages wasn't much of a change from bugs that already existed like this.
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution? Yes they would. All life processes evolve according to evolution. Love, mercy, etc. are chemical reactions in the brain to social stimulus (humans also became social creatures because of the evolutionary advantage of it).

The most common thing creationsists use in trying to disprove evolution (note: I am not trying to disprove creationism, as it is untestable. I am merely trying to show that evolution has not yet been disproved) is that some organs are too complex to have evolved by themselves. The problem with this is that the more complex form of the organ usually evolved from a simpler form that the creationists didn't know existed (which is why they made their claim). Another problem is that some organs evolved from things that did not have the same function as before, like the eye evolving from cells in simpler brains that were sensitive to electricity in such a way that they were also sensitive to light. Finally there is the problem that evolution implies the evolution of particular genes that direct the production of organs, not evolution of the organs themselves. So if a small change in the genes results in a large change in the organs, and this change is favorable, when the mutation does occur, the organism with it will pass on the new genes.

I know im new to this but you christians shouldnt mind because your supposed to love everyone... well except the muslims you didnt like them too much during the crusades even though their religion was very close to christian, but thats irrelevant and hey man im not smart smart im smart so im taking advanced biology. i know i know "oh my god this going to suck" but just hear me out i had a very good teacher guy had a masters and taught the class very well and he was always considerate to what people beleived so if i know it i heard it from him

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

well space has always been their since the begining of time

2. Where did matter come from?

the big bang, no one knows where that came from thiers many theories though

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

umm well gravity is from the spinning of a planet and inertia is like speed isnt it, the better question is why is water made from one hydrogen and two
oxygen, instead of one carbon and two oxygen

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

like i said it kinda just formed

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

cant answer that but sure like everything else we dont know lets slap a big miracle on that and wait a millinea for a smart guy to prove what it was

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?

supposedly from these pits of goo or something

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

how did man learn to use a rock to crack open the bone of a deer, trial and error my friends

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

it was probably a sexual my freind then when populations increased evolution said ok lets make this harder and everyone has to do it with eachother instead of jacking off

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

for the species to keep on going i mean we see it now the young leave momy at a young age and move out to a new spot

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

ok the books thing thats language and whos to say it cant, your one up for miracles how is an embryo created when the mother and father only contribute half the genes required, they come together and combine dont they

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?

no we know this with dinosaurs

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available
and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?

how do you explain putting more crap in the engine of a car, it was found to be more effecient after putting computers and a combustable engine along with entertainment comfort and whatever else they can put into a vehicle, life found a way to produce things more efficiently with more codes

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)

see #12

2. Single-celled animals evolve?

see #12 to be more efficient and better protected

3. Fish change to amphibians?

that was evolution right there fish were getting eaten up so they sid to themselves you know i wish i could get on land to get away from those damed big fish and life found a way

4. Amphibians change to reptiles?

when amphibians decided they'd rather make the land their home

5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

very true, im not sure but their is some timeline out their that tracks the evolution of animals, and no not by using damed imagination of course thats part of it, but it uses bone structure and what we can place of the species today

6. How did the intermediate forms live?

I dont know lets take a damed time machine back and see shall we, maybe we can go back to when the Ark was created too and see how the hell Noah was able to fit every species onto the ark spread them around the world and find out why in the hell did he bring the mosquito with him

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?

havent you heard whales are mammals so lets assume whales come from mammals

2. Sea horses evolve?

i guess

3. Bats evolve?

perhaps

4. Ears evolve?

why not lets see we obviously needed something to detect vibrations in the air fom our predators or prey

5. Eyes evolve?

well yeah what are we gonna do walk around blind all the time

6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

hair was formed to protect us from the weather, skin to protect our internal organs from the outside nails to protect our delicate blood vessels at the tip of out fingers claws were obviously meant for a type of protection/hunting

15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.

couldnt tell ya its like the chiken and the egg

2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

drive to reprodice has become instinct its like trying to explain how a baby giraffe knows how to walk after being born, its been drilled into the minds of its ancestors, and has since become genetic memory

3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?

havent you ever seen the movie evolution it took time for that to happen

4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

i suppose that was probably the first considering is the most important to create all of those organs

5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

time

6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

have you ever smelled a flower dude they smell nice dont they so we can assume that attracts them to it and once upon a time they found nectar in it so they went off to everyone they could

7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

time

8. The immune system or the need for it?

hmm time and time when our bodies found that things were getting inside and screwing everything up

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

they dont teach this as the only explanation but as you can guess its easy to teach creationism. "ok kids this works this ay because that was how it was intended to be by god. everyone got it? good. well have a one question test on this..... now." said the teacher "congrats you all got an A+ because you got the question and your names right." you have to admit i got ya on that one

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?

actually i think its more like the moths in england. you see england had a bunch of brown moths and a tiny amount of white moths during the industrial revolution well some ash was white from the factories got onto the trees and as you know moths sit on trees the brown ones werent camoflaged anymore so they got thrown out of the gene pool but the white ones had the advantage, however a few white and brown ones defied all the laws and fell in love and created more brown children, in short natural selection

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

it didnt evolve actually. it was a way for man to explain his emotions, like how hawks have life long partners, love is really just a collective of points for someone, mercy and guilt came along because of mans feeling superior to animals so they had to do something that would seperate them from the animals you can actually see that those dont effect people that are more violent than most, no mercy and no guilt


please feel free to correct me. but i think evolution, a species mutating from another, is more feasable than creationism, just appearing out of thin air,

and you know if you guys are so rock solid with your faith why do you sit here and try to prove to others that your views are correct man that is such like a christian i guess you always try to press your ideals on someone else saying that their wrong and your right and he or she will rot in hell for it, i mean man no other religion but yours does it so dam forcefully. get a clue

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.


but it can mutate. into a variation

Whether or not this can happen in humans without serious defects arising is an interesting question that should be looked into. I know we can have people who have XXX or XYY or XXY sex chromosomes and still be able to reproduce so I wouldn't be surprised if autosomal chromosomes are gathered from mutant sex chromosomes.
First of all, we can not have XYY in humans. And I think we can actually have X humans, but I could remember wrong there. And Down's syndrome is cause by trisomy, an extra chromome 21. So yeah, chromosomal abnormalities are not good in humans.

Yes, there is a lot of supporting evidence to God being an omnipotent being who created everything :rolleyes:

The NS general forum is definitive proof that many young people (I'm assuming most of the people posting here are under the age of 30) have a deep seated need to know, or at least discuss, something larger than themselves.

Consider:

Christians are supposed to come to God through faith. Yet, here they are, hammering away in unison with their atheistic sisters and brothers about their endless proofs for God's existence. And while the Bible commands them to not make a show of their faith for the benefit of others ("...when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matt.6:6), they just can't help demonstrating what good Christians they are and explaining how everyone else will go to hell. They love to point out how others misinterpret the Bible (I'm sure there will be a post about my own quote from Matthew, no doubt showing me the error of my way). You would think they would be content in their own faith and let God (or gods) take care of the lack of faith of others.

Then there are the Atheists, who do not believe in God, so presumably matters of god, theology, and faith play no role in their lives. Yet, this bulletin board is replete with atheists and agnostics who repeatedly post threads about God, the non-existence of God, proof there is no God, and countless other threads about religion. I would imagine they do not believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy either, yet they manage to restrain themselves from posting about their existence or lack thereof.

Internet Atheists and Christians. A match made in cyber-Heaven.

First of all, we can not have XYY in humans. And I think we can actually have X humans, but I could remember wrong there. And Down's syndrome is cause by trisomy, an extra chromome 21. So yeah, chromosomal abnormalities are not good in humans.

Yes, we can. XYY occurs in about 1 in 1000 male births, and is viable. It is described, among other places, here (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99137.htm) .

XXY and XXXY males have what is called Kleinfelter syndrome and are often hermaphroditic. This mutation is also viable.

Some chromosomal abnormalities are fatal, some cause visible variations, and some can remain undetected for life. Saying they are "not good" is far too wide a generalisation.

The NS general forum is definitive proof that many young people (I'm assuming most of the people posting here are under the age of 30) have a deep seated need to know, or at least discuss, something larger than themselves.

Consider:

Christians are supposed to come to God through faith. Yet, here they are, hammering away in unison with their atheistic sisters and brothers about their endless proofs for God's existence. And while the Bible commands them to not make a show of their faith for the benefit of others ("...when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matt.6:6), they just can't help demonstrating what good Christians they are and explaining how everyone else will go to hell. They love to point out how others misinterpret the Bible (I'm sure there will be a post about my own quote from Matthew, no doubt showing me the error of my way). You would think they would be content in their own faith and let God (or gods) take care of the lack of faith of others.

Then there are the Atheists, who do not believe in God, so presumably matters of god, theology, and faith play no role in their lives. Yet, this bulletin board is replete with atheists and agnostics who repeatedly post threads about God, the non-existence of God, proof there is no God, and countless other threads about religion. I would imagine they do not believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy either, yet they manage to restrain themselves from posting about their existence or lack thereof.

Internet Atheists and Christians. A match made in cyber-Heaven.

well summed up.
Never been able to tell the difference between the 2 myself.

Then there are the Atheists, who do not believe in God, so presumably matters of god, theology, and faith play no role in their lives. Yet, this bulletin board is replete with atheists and agnostics who repeatedly post threads about God, the non-existence of God, proof there is no God, and countless other threads about religion. I would imagine they do not believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy either, yet they manage to restrain themselves from posting about their existence or lack thereof.

of course, atheists don't tend to live in places where everyone around them feverently believes in the tooth fairy, and demands to make their children participate in tooth fairy-based rituals, and where you cannot be elected to high office without making a big show about how much you believe in the tooth fairy, and where several of the rulers of the country have gone on record saying that people who don't believe in the tooth fairy aren't real citizens.

of course, atheists don't tend to live in places where everyone around them feverently believes in the tooth fairy, and demands to make their children participate in tooth fairy-based rituals, and where you cannot be elected to high office without making a big show about how much you believe in the tooth fairy, and where several of the rulers of the country have gone on record saying that people who don't believe in the tooth fairy aren't real citizens.

unfortunately, does the reverse not also apply? in some countries beleiving in the tooth fairy can make things harder for you aswell. no?
lifes as bitch and then the tooth fairy gets you!

First of all, we can not have XYY in humans. And I think we can actually have X humans, but I could remember wrong there. And Down's syndrome is cause by trisomy, an extra chromome 21. So yeah, chromosomal abnormalities are not good in humans.

Geez, how wrong you are. It's called 'Jacob's Syndrome' (although technically NOT a syndrome).

http://www.aaa.dk/TURNER/ENGELSK/XYYEN.HTM

There was a big deal made about convicts having a high degree of XYY karyotypes at one time. I'll show you a site disproving that stereotype.

http://www.pathguy.com/xyy.htm

More on Single X (TURNER) females here: (they usually die young and are infertile)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=turner+syndrome&r=67

More info on sex chromosomal errors here:

http://www.dor.kaiser.org/genetics/OurServices/XXY-XYY-XXXMain.html
http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/a/aa110504a.htm

unfortunately, does the reverse not also apply? in some countries beleiving in the tooth fairy can make things harder for you aswell. no?
lifes as bitch and then the tooth fairy gets you!

Generally, that's only if you believe the tooth fairy is differant than what the people around you believe. Then they get pissed, because, damnit, even though none of them have ever seen or spoken with her, they sure know they are right.

I just got this lovely image of people going to war over whether santa was a jolly old elf, or a fat man. (Without even throwing the likes of black peter into the mix)

O.o

o.O x 2

God makes life appear in my fridge?

I choose to reply to this thread via quotes. Enjoy!

You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the f*cking Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big f*cking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend. - Bill Hicks

"Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith." Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "Uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be...f*ckin' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA." - Bill Hicks

Ever notice how intelligent people reject creationism? It's not a coincidence.

Christianity has a built-in defense system; anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It is a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it, and believe me I was raised Southern Baptist, is to take heroic doses of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."

[Bill Hicks, comedian]

The previous two posts have convinced me that Bill Hicks is god. I genuflect in his general direction.

In general argumentation by quotation is regarded as a logical fallacy since it represents an appeal to authority. But there are so many good quotes out there!

We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish."

[Isaac Asimov, 'The "Threat" of Creationism', essay in "Science and Creationism," 1984

Umm...wifey faithful? :p

rofl ... yes.

The previous two posts have convinced me that Bill Hicks is god. I genuflect in his general direction.
He is the second incarnation of God. H.L. Mencken is the Father, Bill Hicks the Son. All that's left is the manifistation of the Holy Spirit.

The previous two posts have convinced me that Bill Hicks is god. I genuflect in his general direction.
I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the second coming of Bill Hicks. He said that this generation wouldn't pass away before he returned.... Oh, wait, that was the other guy who promised to return. :(

Another fine quote:

"I have encountered a few "creationists" and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were _really_ mad, or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created that whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading mankind?"

[Arthur C. Clarke, June 5, 1998, in the essay "Presidents, Experts, and Asteroids," pp 1532-3]

"6. How did the intermediate forms live?"

This one always cracks me up the most, are people incapable of thinking or something?
Ever heard of flying rats for example?

He is the second incarnation of God. H.L. Mencken is the Father, Bill Hicks the Son. All that's left is the manifistation of the Holy Spirit.


Its too bad there aren't more guys around today like Hicks:

"I love the Pope, I love seeing him in his Pope-Mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That's faith in action folks! You know he's got God on his side."

[Bill Hicks, comedian]

Like HL Menken:

"A Galileo could no more be elected president of the United States than he could be elected Pope of Rome. Both high posts are reserved for men favored by God with an extraordinary genius for swathing the bitter facts of life in bandages of self-illusion."

[H.L. Mencken]

or like Robert Ingersol:

"With soap, baptism is a good thing." [Robert G. Ingersoll, "My Reviewers Reviewed" lecture in San Francisco, June 27, 1877]

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
God got caught up in a time-sharing scam.

2. Where did matter come from?
It was hiding just underneath the mind.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Senate Resolution 48H

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
The Dewey Decimal system

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
It was requisitioned from Santa's elves.

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
March 27th, 3:41 pm, its name was "Brian"

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
I'm not sure it ever actually did, but singles.com is a good place to start.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Ron Jeremy

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
Ask the Irish.


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Careful marketing plans combined with low-cost insurance.


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
Only if you prefer form over function.

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
Beaurocrats.

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)See #6
2. Single-celled animals evolve?Never in mixed company
3. Fish change to amphibians?Medical science is amazing
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?They're trying to block this in Congress
5. Reptiles change to birds? See #13.2
6. How did the intermediate forms live?Mostly as share croppers

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve? They didn't. Whales come from space as is and are assembled in plants outside of Tokyo
2. Sea horses evolve?You should see the polo matches
3. Bats evolve?They came out of backlash from a 60s movement
4. Ears evolve?The better to hear you with, my dear
5. Eyes evolve?Ask the Irish
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?I didn't see those on the menu. Does it come with salad?

15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.The egg
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?Love should not require batteries
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?Mixing gasses in a crowded elevator is rude.
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?I think Bell Industries developed RNA while working on stereograms.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?Now that's just nasty
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?You should drink more beer.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?Boneless chickens are strange birds.
8. The immune system or the need for it?Germs are a myth.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
It beats the alternative.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
Well it is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Ask Dick Cheney

*cries* that is just beautiful, thank you for this. my sleep is now assured to be both pleasent and entertaining. this is proof that god exsists humor plain and simple. :p

I choose to reply to this thread via quotes. Enjoy!

You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the f*cking Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big f*cking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend. - Bill Hicks

Sadly, some Christian Right-wingers really believe that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. They consider the "dragon" legends of various cultures to be proof of this. And they think that there are probably dinosaurs still alive today. Don't believe me that anyone could be this nuts? Read this (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977).

And yes, this is from a popular right-wing site whose columnists include Ann Coulter and the co-author of the Swift Boat book.

Generally, that's only if you believe the tooth fairy is differant than what the people around you believe. Then they get pissed, because, damnit, even though none of them have ever seen or spoken with her, they sure know they are right.

I just got this lovely image of people going to war over whether santa was a jolly old elf, or a fat man. (Without even throwing the likes of black peter into the mix)

he was a jolly old fat man elf, named black peter. of course

Sadly, some Christian Right-wingers really believe that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. They consider the "dragon" legends of various cultures to be proof of this. And they think that there are probably dinosaurs still alive today. Don't believe me that anyone could be this nuts? Read this (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977).

And yes, this is from a popular right-wing site whose columnists include Ann Coulter and the co-author of the Swift Boat book.


:D :D :D
Do you have any more wonderful links like that!?!
This guy outdoes landoverbabtist

He is the second incarnation of God. H.L. Mencken is the Father, Bill Hicks the Son. All that's left is the manifistation of the Holy Spirit.

can we vote for george carlin as the holy spirit? one vote

Generally, that's only if you believe the tooth fairy is differant than what the people around you believe. Then they get pissed, because, damnit, even though none of them have ever seen or spoken with her, they sure know they are right.

I just got this lovely image of people going to war over whether santa was a jolly old elf, or a fat man. (Without even throwing the likes of black peter into the mix)

Ever read red-dwarf? Where they wiped each other out over a disagreement on what color hats "the creator" wanted the staff to wear in his hamburger stand?

he was a jolly old fat man elf, named black peter. of course

heretic.

i disagree with what you are calling evolution. that is, macro-evolution. the changing from one species to another (at some point, one species would have to give birth to another, different species, something that has yet to be proven, as far as i know). i do believe in micro-evolution, adaptations within a species (and the boundaries of said species), natural selection, etc.

the biggest flaw i see in evolution is that it's basis is contradictory to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (complexity moves toward simplicity, not the other way around). there are no contradictions in existence to this 2nd law.

now, i'll say that i believe in creation. did you get that? i BELIEVE in creation, i have faith in it. macro-evolution does not make logical sense to me, aside from contradicting a proven law of science. evolution in this sense, and creation are both matters of faith.

Nobel laureate, Harold Urey said, "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

Physicist Wolfgang Smith said, "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting moreover, that for the most part these experts have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or Biblical persuasions but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully."

i disagree with what you are calling evolution. that is, macro-evolution. the changing from one species to another (at some point, one species would have to give birth to another, different species, something that has yet to be proven, as far as i know). i do believe in micro-evolution, adaptations within a species (and the boundaries of said species), natural selection, etc.

the biggest flaw i see in evolution is that it's basis is contradictory to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (complexity moves toward simplicity, not the other way around). there are no contradictions in existence to this 2nd law.

now, i'll say that i believe in creation. did you get that? i BELIEVE in creation, i have faith in it. macro-evolution does not make logical sense to me, aside from contradicting a proven law of science. evolution in this sense, and creation are both matters of faith.

Nobel laureate, Harold Urey said, "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

Physicist Wolfgang Smith said, "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting moreover, that for the most part these experts have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or Biblical persuasions but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully."

I thought the 2nd law only applied to closed systems? Because, y'know, the environment of earth *isn't* a closed system... heat and light coming from the sun being a good example. Feed energy in -> more complexity?

But hey, I only know biology, not physics.

I would like to add though that macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution. Just like natural selection is the means by which evolution occurs. It always cracks me up when people say "I believe in <the two things that lead to macroevolution>, but I don't think macroevolution is possible". Mucho amusement.

the biggest flaw i see in evolution is that it's basis is contradictory to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (complexity moves toward simplicity, not the other way around). there are no contradictions in existence to this 2nd law.

well, you are half right. there are no known contradictions to the second law of thermo. including evolution and every chemical reaction necessary for life and reproduction and mutation. your problem just comes from the fact that you've listened to charlatans and mad-men for your understanding of the second law. never a good idea.

try here instead - http://www.secondlaw.com/

There is nothing to be debated here. It is obvious that this person that started this thread is a little of his rocker. In no way can evolution be contested. We have facts. It is crazy to think otherwise.

well, you are half right. there are no known contradictions to the second law of thermo. including evolution and every chemical reaction necessary for life and reproduction and mutation. your problem just comes from the fact that you've listened to charlatans and mad-men for your understanding of the second law. never a good idea.

try here instead - http://www.secondlaw.com/


The key word in that post is "known"; there may very well be contradictions to the second law of thermodynamics, but if there are, we haven't found them.

Creationism on the other hand is, quite frankly, a load of dingo's kidneys, for reasons that others have already stated for me (thanks!).

The formation and adaptation of life is not contradictory to the second law. The second law does not state that every process has to result in a higher state of entropy of the parts immediately involved; it states that every process increases the overall entropy in the universe.

For the last few billion years, the sun has, by fusing massive amounts of Hydrogen into Helium, released all the energy that Earth has needed for life to evolve. Overall, the universe has become less ordered.

---

The adaption works because of recursion. Each generation of life forms is produced from those of the last that were most able to survive under the conditions they lived in. New, random changes come to pass because of mutations. Viruses carry genetic material from one species to the others. Radiation (from the sun and from natural radioactivity) causes mutations.
If the mutations are better than the original, they replace it. If not, they vanish again after a few generations.

A million years is a lot of generations.

Ya. We do. It's wrong, but oh well. That's what Makes us flawed, at least that's what I believe.

I believe that the basic premise of evolution is entirely wrong. That is, one species evolving into another, more complex species over a matter of millions of years. (Though the millions of years is another story). Let me first state that I am a christian, and a Creationist in the general sense, which means I believe we were created by an intelligent designer. However, I believe that many things about the theory of evolution are correct, such as natural selection. The evolving part I find complete and utter bull. I'm not going to debate this from a religious standpoint. This is from a scientific standpoint.

First of all, evolution can prove itself wrong. Natural selection, and survival of the fittest say that species will change for the better to adapt to their environments. That's all well and true. The theory of evolution says that reptiles evolved over millions of years into birds. Ok. But what of the intermediate forms? The reptile would have had to, over millions of years, gradullay develop wings, feathers, etc. So, these intermediate forms of the reptile-bird don't have wings, but nubs. But it doesn't do the reptile any good. They're changing, but the wings/ nubs wouldn't do any better than regular limbs...so how would the ones without nubs get killed off by natural selection if they're doing just as well as those with them? It doesn't add up.

Another major point I have is a rather large and complicated one, dealing with the amount of genetic information in a certain living organism. Evolution states that we, and every other living organism, developed out of single cell bacteria. Alright. The problem is, those single cells have a very limited amount of genetic information. Say, about enough information to fill a 200 page book. We, as humans, have enough genetic info to fill a library of thousands of books. The problem here, is adding enough genetic information to cause mutations, to cause organisms to evolve. In fact, Scienctists can't prove that one letter of genetic code can be added. You can't just have mutations, and add genetic code. It doesn't work that way. Mutations only change the genetic code.

I've looked at it logically, and religiously. I can really only come to the conclusion that something must have influenced the way we came about. I mean, scientists are missing something that either came about, or something the lord above did to influence it. It's the only conclusion I can really draw.

A couple of links:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

http://www.highschoolscience.com/conf/enemy.pdf

Answer these questions, please, if you can.

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is: does it provide answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory, it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Below are a few of the questions that should be answered.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Ears evolve?
5. Eyes evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Source:http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheFalseReligionofEvolution.htm

question for creationists, since we question the origin of the universe, and thus of evolution, can't we question the origin of god? How is it possible say in one breath, that someone had to create the universe because it couldnt have always been there without asking in the second breath, "then who created god? or could he have always been there?"... I love the hypocrasy that comes of religion!!

the only thing I know, is that I know nothing. :)

Well, you notice that Neadrethals were actually supposed to be far superior to modern humans in just about every aspect. I'd wager that they were the originals, we're the prodects of that incest.

However, the incest only lasted a few generations. The early people had many children, so a few generations down the road, you'd be pretty sure of not marrying you're relatives.

if the first couple of generations are relatives, that makes every1 sharing the same bloodline; ie relatives. thus according to the bible there is only incest:)

and as to cells not evolving, how do animals n humans become resistent against sort of diseases or chemicals, does god grant them the power to resist or what?

It's not about Facts .. it's about FAITH you idiots..

a couple of posts up someone said who created god..no one did.. he was the un-moved mover, he has always been there as well as the devil... you can't be born an angel you just are.. I believe heaven has been there for all eternity, thus the battle between the Devil and God, the Devil became jealous, the most beautiful angel thought him and a select few others thought they could overcome God. They didn't and God banished them all to Hell, you can say how do you know this or that's just a lie. That is where faith comes in however, the faith you have in something is stronger than anything. The faith in a loved one to pull through when they're sick.. the faith to believe in someone when no one else does. So before you spout off something about Evolution or post to tell me how wrong I am. Having faith is the best 'attribute' if you will, to have. With faith you'll carry on..

How funny...

I had a debate IRL following this same stream earlier this morning!

The point I'd like to make is...

Creationists cite proof that evolution is WRONG, but the only proof they have that SUPPORTS creationism is a book, and faith. And the entire concept of faith is beliving something without rock-solid evidence, so...

Creationists, I challenge you to give me proof for creationism without simply saying "The bible" or "The church" says "this", or simply saying "You're wrong, so I must be right".

I have said that to SO many people, and not ONE of them has been able to answer it.

As i said up above, you can't physically prove that evolution exists, you can't go back in time and watch an animal progress. I know that isn't your argument but had to get that out.. anyway you can't prove alot of things, even if faith is having belief with no facts, it's someones beliefs who makes them believe in whichever god or gods believe in....

Sadly, some Christian Right-wingers really believe that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. They consider the "dragon" legends of various cultures to be proof of this. And they think that there are probably dinosaurs still alive today. Don't believe me that anyone could be this nuts? Read this (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977).

And yes, this is from a popular right-wing site whose columnists include Ann Coulter and the co-author of the Swift Boat book.

I used to work for the guy who wrote Heartbeat of the Dragon: Occult Roots of Rock and Roll. He believes that velociraptors and pterodactyls exist in South America. He also wanted me to fire someone simply because the kid was a pagan.

As i said up above, you can't physically prove that evolution exists, you can't go back in time and watch an animal progress.

well, we can and have watched various things evolve. and while we can't go back in time and actually watch the historical pathway of evolutionary change, we similarly can't go back in time to see who is guilty of various crimes. that doesn't stop us from using the evidence to figure it out anyway.

Because Creationism is simply a belief it can be neither proven nor proven wrong for many of the reasons previously stated such as the fact that none of us were there and so we don't know what happened.

Similarily, Evolution cannot be proven because of the same reasons. However, it can be proven wrong. There is a little thing called the flagella motor on many cells. This motor is what most evolutionists don't want to admit, irreducibly complex. Because the theory of evolution states that in order for something to evolve, it must serve some purpose and aid in the survival of the entity. However, for the flagella this is impossible because of the fact that by putting itself together over time, it serves no purpose at all and thus would be impossible to evolve.

When evolutionists first heard of this theory they immediately changed their theory to include "The parts needed for this flagella are located in other parts of the cell, so it could've happened by chance and ended up benifiting the cell thus, evolving."

True, the evolutionists were correct on this matter, there are SOME components of the flagella located in other parts of the cell. But this ignores the origins of the other 30 or so key elements of the flagella motor.

What do evolutionists have to say about this, nothing. They cannot accept the fact that the flagella motor is irreducibly complex and so they either say the idea is stupid and wrong, or ignore it all together. It is only a matter of time before they change their theory again to include this obvious case of irreducible complexity.


Now, the non-scientific part. The part that most of you will attack ignoring the proven facts above.

What hope does evolution give you? The theory of evolution states, "Yeah...you see, you're just an accident of Nature, no one cares about you except for the other freaks you call humans. So, go ahead and get your life over with, it doesn't really matter anyhow."

I can't understand why anyone would WANT to believe this lunacy. Creationism says that there is a god who cares about you. That you matter to him and your life is not a complete waste. When it comes down to it, it seems like anyone would want to believe that they are cared for. Creationism gives life meaning. I guess Evolutionists just can't accept that. They'd rather just go through life saying, "There's no reason for us to live. We may as well die now."

As i said up above, you can't physically prove that evolution exists, you can't go back in time and watch an animal progress. I know that isn't your argument but had to get that out.. anyway you can't prove alot of things, even if faith is having belief with no facts, it's someones beliefs who makes them believe in whichever god or gods believe in....

We can and do watch evolution happening now; Multi-Drug Resistant bacteria are a case in point. HIV/AIDS is another. Evolution happens all the time around you; to deny it is to deny the evidence presented by your own senses.

Faith just don't enter into it; "It is so becuase I beleive it to be so" is a fallacious argument.

I evolved from a soda can

well...maybe just a part of me did :p

There is a little thing called the flagella motor on many cells. This motor is what most evolutionists don't want to admit, irreducibly complex. Because the theory of evolution states that in order for something to evolve, it must serve some purpose and aid in the survival of the entity. However, for the flagella this is impossible because of the fact that by putting itself together over time, it serves no purpose at all and thus would be impossible to evolve.

When evolutionists first heard of this theory they immediately changed their theory to include "The parts needed for this flagella are located in other parts of the cell, so it could've happened by chance and ended up benifiting the cell thus, evolving."

True, the evolutionists were correct on this matter, there are SOME components of the flagella located in other parts of the cell. But this ignores the origins of the other 30 or so key elements of the flagella motor.

What do evolutionists have to say about this, nothing. They cannot accept the fact that the flagella motor is irreducibly complex and so they either say the idea is stupid and wrong, or ignore it all together. It is only a matter of time before they change their theory again to include this obvious case of irreducible complexity.

see, the funny thing is that we have demonstrated that flagella are not irreducibly complex. we won, your guys lost. but instead of accepting defeat, they merely changed their claim. just like the last thousand times. and then we showed that the new claim was wrong too. lather , rinse, repeat.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)

you guys ever think about getting a slongan?
"creationism - still hoping that induction doesn't work"

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.


A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lovely joke for a Monday morning!

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

No animal is immortal. Therefore, the only way to indefinitely promote its race is through reproduction. It's instinctive: Survive, reproduce, survive, reproduce, etc. The individual does not have to grasp the "sense" of what it is doing - it is a part of a species.

It's no different with humanity, except that we have developed more complex ways of increasing survival chances. And of course we have a much larger "Operating System" ie, knowledge that needs to be handed down through education. Most animals spend a few weeks or months educating their young, we use almost 20 years. That knowledge is just another kind of inheritance passed down like DNA.

We have seen cultural evolution, that takes place in the mindset of people.
Much faster, because it is more subject to mutations than the genetic material.

We have seen religion evolve from pantheism over polytheism to monotheism, Judaism evolve from nowhere, Christianity from Judaism and Islam from both. Oligarchy from Anarchy, on to Theocracy, Monarchy, Imperialism, and on to Fascism and Democracy.

What hinders us from extrapolating from cultural evolution to biological evolution, on a much larger timescale?

What is the breaking point in the logic chain - don't creationists accept the existence of DNA? The mutation of DNA? What is the flaw in a reasoning that says - "those most able to survive and pass on their DNA will survive and pass on their DNA"?

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

GAHH!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!

EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church, the LARGEST RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IN THE WORLDwith over ONE BILLION MEMBERS officially supports the evolution and big bang theories!!!

Would you people please get it into your heads that chrisitanity and evolution are not mutually exclusive!!

GAHH!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!

EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church, the LARGEST RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IN THE WORLDwith over ONE BILLION MEMBERS officially supports the evolution and big bang theories!!!

Would you people please get it into your heads that chrisitanity and evolution are not mutually exclusive!!

<yoda voice>
Listen to EBH, wisdom s/he speaks
</yoda voice>

Seriously, s/he has a point; they aren't mutually exclusive.

<yoda voice>
Listen to EBH, wisdom s/he speaks
</yoda voice>

Seriously, s/he has a point; they aren't mutually exclusive.

THANKYOU!!! (and its he)

I'm sorry, i'm not normally that passionate but the ignorance of some people really pisses me off.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.Someone should begin piling up wood around a stake...

Because Creationism is simply a belief it can be neither proven nor proven wrong for many of the reasons previously stated such as the fact that none of us were there and so we don't know what happened.

Similarily, Evolution cannot be proven because of the same reasons. However, it can be proven wrong. There is a little thing called the flagella motor on many cells. This motor is what most evolutionists don't want to admit, irreducibly complex. Because the theory of evolution states that in order for something to evolve, it must serve some purpose and aid in the survival of the entity. However, for the flagella this is impossible because of the fact that by putting itself together over time, it serves no purpose at all and thus would be impossible to evolve.

When evolutionists first heard of this theory they immediately changed their theory to include "The parts needed for this flagella are located in other parts of the cell, so it could've happened by chance and ended up benifiting the cell thus, evolving."

True, the evolutionists were correct on this matter, there are SOME components of the flagella located in other parts of the cell. But this ignores the origins of the other 30 or so key elements of the flagella motor.

What do evolutionists have to say about this, nothing. They cannot accept the fact that the flagella motor is irreducibly complex and so they either say the idea is stupid and wrong, or ignore it all together. It is only a matter of time before they change their theory again to include this obvious case of irreducible complexity.


Now, the non-scientific part. The part that most of you will attack ignoring the proven facts above.

What hope does evolution give you? The theory of evolution states, "Yeah...you see, you're just an accident of Nature, no one cares about you except for the other freaks you call humans. So, go ahead and get your life over with, it doesn't really matter anyhow."

I can't understand why anyone would WANT to believe this lunacy. Creationism says that there is a god who cares about you. That you matter to him and your life is not a complete waste. When it comes down to it, it seems like anyone would want to believe that they are cared for. Creationism gives life meaning. I guess Evolutionists just can't accept that. They'd rather just go through life saying, "There's no reason for us to live. We may as well die now."

Some of as secure enough that we don't need an invisible friend who'll love us no matter what shitty things we do. Some of us are honest enough to say "I did something wrong, and I have no excuse", instead of hiding behind a book of myths. Some of us are willing to believe partial-theories, rather than be coddled by 'it's all been done by a superhuman, so we aren't *meant* to understand it". I guess some of us just like living in the real world, and like creating our *own* meaning for life, rather than using one over 2000 years old.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
God got caught up in a time-sharing scam.

2. Where did matter come from?
It was hiding just underneath the mind.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Senate Resolution 48H

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
The Dewey Decimal system

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
It was requisitioned from Santa's elves.

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
March 27th, 3:41 pm, its name was "Brian"

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
I'm not sure it ever actually did, but singles.com is a good place to start.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Ron Jeremy

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
Ask the Irish.


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Careful marketing plans combined with low-cost insurance.


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
Only if you prefer form over function.

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
Beaurocrats.

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)See #6
2. Single-celled animals evolve?Never in mixed company
3. Fish change to amphibians?Medical science is amazing
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?They're trying to block this in Congress
5. Reptiles change to birds? See #13.2
6. How did the intermediate forms live?Mostly as share croppers

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve? They didn't. Whales come from space as is and are assembled in plants outside of Tokyo
2. Sea horses evolve?You should see the polo matches
3. Bats evolve?They came out of backlash from a 60s movement
4. Ears evolve?The better to hear you with, my dear
5. Eyes evolve?Ask the Irish
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?I didn't see those on the menu. Does it come with salad?

15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.The egg
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?Love should not require batteries
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?Mixing gasses in a crowded elevator is rude.
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?I think Bell Industries developed RNA while working on stereograms.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?Now that's just nasty
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?You should drink more beer.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?Boneless chickens are strange birds.
8. The immune system or the need for it?Germs are a myth.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
It beats the alternative.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
Well it is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Ask Dick Cheney


Refreshing... good to see someone who will sleep soundly after reading all this BS. No wonder people are stressed, we take everything too seriously.

THANKYOU!!! (and its he)

I'm sorry, i'm not normally that passionate but the ignorance of some people really pisses me off.

Anytime; a crusade against ignorance, though sometimes futile, is a good cause.

And that list of answers posted by Keruvalia cracks me up *copies and emails to friends*.

[QUOTE=What hope does evolution give you? The theory of evolution states, "Yeah...you see, you're just an accident of Nature, no one cares about you except for the other freaks you call humans. So, go ahead and get your life over with, it doesn't really matter anyhow."

I can't understand why anyone would WANT to believe this lunacy. Creationism says that there is a god who cares about you. That you matter to him and your life is not a complete waste. When it comes down to it, it seems like anyone would want to believe that they are cared for. Creationism gives life meaning. I guess Evolutionists just can't accept that. They'd rather just go through life saying, "There's no reason for us to live. We may as well die now."[/QUOTE]

I am not going to 'attack' this argument, I am going to answer it with a refutation. In a certain sense, I am also going to refute some of the anti-creationism arguments as well.

Evolution and Divine Creation are not diametrically opposed, incompatible philosophies. In fact, the difference between Evolution and strict Biblical fundamentalism is not an argument between differing answers to the question 'Why' but between differing answers to the question 'How?', because the Theory of Evolution does not argue that there is no God, it attempts to explain the process of nature.

There is an old expression: God is in the details. Many physicists, biologists, and mathematicians find that there is an order to various laws of their sciences that is rational, even sentient. That seemingly random events form into patterns when closely studied. Evolution certainly seems to fit this argument in my mind. The scientific details, when studied in minutiae, often enhance rather than destroy religious faith.

I would argue that the belief that rational thought is a threat to faith is evidence of weak faith, not strong faith. Fundamentalism of any kind, regardless of the religion from which it springs, is evidence of a lack or weakness of true faith or a fear of such weakness in others. Not strength of conviction. The apostle Paul (the New Testament's first Christian Fundamentalist) expresses this fear well when he comments that those of stronger faith should not engage in behavior that might lead those of weaker faith to doubt their convictions. This, essentially, is the argument against science today. 'It leads people away from God.'

Religious fundamentalism is not a tool with which the Christian strong in his faith interacts with the world around him. It is the crutch with which a Christian of weak faith props himself upon to protect himself from his own doubts, or the weapon which the wolf (see II Peter for expanation) uses to keep the sheep where he can feed on them. The fundamentalist is motivated by the fear of rational thought. As rational thought is the chief gift of the Creator to Mankind, the suppression and opposition to rational thought can only be motivated by Satan.

To say there is no meaning of life is the samething as saying the Universe is infinite. People can't stand that idea, that there is no end. Samething with the meaning of life. To us there must be a meaning for everything. That is because almost everything you see has one. But the minitue you come to something that doesn't you say there has to be. So when that happened to our great ancestors they made up the first religion.

Wow no one is going to challenge me on what I said? I knew I was good but not that good.

Wow no one is going to challenge me on what I said? I knew I was good but not that good.
Crazy! I am the only sane one, every one else is crazy! At least on my scale of sanity.
You belive you exist, is that crazy? You are a figment of my imagination so as I am sane so must you be.

Crazy! I am the only sane one, every one else is crazy! At least on my scale of sanity.
You belive you exist, is that crazy? You are a figment of my imagination so as I am sane so must you be.

You sure are a few fries short of happy meal.

You sure are a few fries short of happy meal.
I assure you the carpet goes to the top of the stairs, i am a full shilling and the pick nick has the required number of sarnies!
You and my other selves however I am starting to worry about.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period. Actually, evolution can be SHOWN to happen. It is simply variation of offspring, when the most suited survive. That's all it is. I believe in irreducible complexity - Venus Fly Trap - but even if the world was created, further evolution can occur.

Anyone disprove me?

Actually, evolution can be SHOWN to happen. It is simply variation of offspring, when the most suited survive. That's all it is. I believe in irreducible complexity - Venus Fly Trap - but even if the world was created, further evolution can occur.

Anyone disprove me?
How is the Venus fly trap irreducably complex?

More to the point, why bother with creation if evolution can occur?

How is the Venus fly trap irreducably complex?

More to the point, why bother with creation if evolution can occur? Well, the venus fly trap has hairs which detect insects - then the leaf folds in and digests them. How could this carnivore spontaneously evolve from a (heliovore?) plant? I realise the huge numbers of generations involved - but I cannot see how it could have evolved. I mean, it does give them an advantage - but can you think of any possible steps along the way? And how?

Your second point - well, everything had to start somewhere.

Actually, evolution can be SHOWN to happen. It is simply variation of offspring, when the most suited survive. That's all it is. I believe in irreducible complexity - Venus Fly Trap - but even if the world was created, further evolution can occur.

Anyone disprove me?
Evolution is not defined by one of it's system i.e. Natural Selection. We must not confuse the two.

Not coming down on any side here, but if you were creating a self sustaining system would you not build into the system the ability to adapt to changes to the parameters from those set at the start of the system?

Oh God, no. It happened again.

What fac....I mean....there's....you've....that....

Oh, I'm not even going to bother. SOMEONE CLOSE THIS THREAD. IT'S ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE. THERE'S NO POINT.

Evolution is not defined by one of it's system i.e. Natural Selection. We must not confuse the two. Frag, I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Evolution is the long-term changing of the gene pool and subsequent changing of life forms brought on over generations by natural selection. Right?

Frag, I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Evolution is the long-term changing of the gene pool and subsequent changing of life forms brought on over generations by natural selection. Right?

Thats correct.

Frag, I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Evolution is the long-term changing of the gene pool and subsequent changing of life forms brought on over generations by natural selection. Right?
Sort of.

Not bad for a non biologist.

NianNorth, you're right - God would create life-forms with the ability to adapt. Otherwise, first environmental change, and there would be extermination.

Well, you notice that Neadrethals were actually supposed to be far superior to modern humans in just about every aspect. I'd wager that they were the originals, we're the prodects of that incest.

However, the incest only lasted a few generations. The early people had many children, so a few generations down the road, you'd be pretty sure of not marrying you're relatives.

Which means nothing if you do not see spontanous mutation from one generation to the other (which is in short term one of the most important ingredients of evolution) as a possible mechanism. Then we have incest up to today because there were no real significant changes just remixing of the same pool of genes through the ages.

Not bad for a non biologist.

NianNorth, you're right - God would create life-forms with the ability to adapt. Otherwise, first environmental change, and there would be extermination.
I'm not a creationist, but it annoys me that people who accept evolution and natural selection as true think that this therfore disproves any divine intervention. The evidence for one theory does not disprove another, it merely makes that other theory less likley.

If you take the translation of the bible as true and ignore the fact that something imensely complex was being expalined to simple people then creationism falls pretty flat. Unless you assume a divine all powerfull being that decided to set all the evidence up to allow for toher thoeries (god the joker?).

If you take the Biblical texts as a simpletons guide to the complex system of creating a universe from scratch then it could make sense.

If a biologist explains natural selection and evolution and the development of species to a ten year old in terms they understand. It does not invalidate the ideas if a research genetisist picks holes in that explanation.

Who really bleeding cares how the universe originated? Is this something that will affect your day greatly? For all that I care to believe, the world was made as per the Norse myths. Check them out yourself, I can't be bothered to find a link. I cannot prove it in any way, but noone can PROVE without a doubt how the universe came to be anyway. So please stop.
For all we know, the universe was made when a gigantic spacegoat sneezed. Bah! Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. :D

It's funny how people that are against evolution spend all their time attacking science and trying to show that science is wrong -- nobody seems able to prove that they're right, only that the other guy is wrong.
Science is an evolving discipline -- new things come out of it every day, and so you can't just say that science is wrong and that you're right unless you can prove yourself right. (don't just try and show that the other guy is wrong...)

Actually - proving existing theories wrong is how science works. You observe something, develop a theory as to why that happens (hypothesis) and then proceed to test it. If the test shows your hypothesis to be wrong you adjust your theory and repeat the process. I you can't prove it wrong, and others can't either, it may in time become recognised as a law instead of a theory.

That said - assuming G-d created everything is indeed a hypothesis. But now we reach the official difference between science and many religions:
When facts seem to indicate science is wrong it tries to adapt the science so it fits the facts
When facts seem to indicate religion is wrong it tries to adapt the facts so they fit the religion.
(Note that in practice many scientists are only human and there for also prefer to ignore data that does not fit the theory that they just spend several years developing. But ideally they shouldn't).

And so we get people claiming that dinosaurs never existed, and making claims like "the eye obviously is too complex to be a result of evolution" without providing proof of those statements. Why so many people are spending 5 years at universities studying physics and biology is of course beyond them - since everything should be obvious...

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.


Your assertions are baseless. Science has done no such thing. I have two degrees in science and one in teaching. A single cell may not involve, but that says nothing about organisms over time. You are ill informed, unthinking and just plain incorrect.

Here is an interesting thought: As a scientist and a Christian, I have no difficulty reconciling the ideas of creationism and evolution. One tells you that God did these things, and the other tells you how.

Unless of course, you are a literalist... then you are just plain stupid.

Just a few thoughts by people far wiser than I onthe subjects of science and religion.
Knowledge is not happiness, and science but an exchange of ignorance for that which is another kind of ignorance.

G G Byron.

Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.

O O W Wilde

We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.

J Swift

Religion….is the opium of the people.

K H Marx

Whenever a man talks loudly against religion, always suspect that it is not his reason, but his passions which have got the better of his creed.

Sciences may be learned by rote, but wisdom not.

L Sterne

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Before god we are all equally wise-equally foolish

A Einstein

I show you doubt to prove that faith exists.

R Browning

The first and wisest of them all professed to know this only, that he knew nothing.

J Milton

They know enough who know how to learn.

H Adams

The lady does protest too much, methinks.

W Shakespeare.

Then there are the Atheists, who do not believe in God, so presumably matters of god, theology, and faith play no role in their lives. Yet, this bulletin board is replete with atheists and agnostics who repeatedly post threads about God, the non-existence of God, proof there is no God, and countless other threads about religion. I would imagine they do not believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy either, yet they manage to restrain themselves from posting about their existence or lack thereof.

Internet Atheists and Christians. A match made in cyber-Heaven.

In point of fact (sorry to dredge up something from 5 pages ago, but it has to be said, and you guys post way too fast for me to keep up), there are a number of atheistic religions that exist as life philosophies but do not rely on a deity, such as Taoism, Confucianism, some forms of Buddhism, etc. Unfortunately, there is a widespread misconception that atheism is the lack of a religion, rather than the lack of God/gods.

And thank...(hmm, who should I thank?)...(well, would that make sense?)...(eh, why the heck not...)...Einstein that somebody finally said that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Good example: Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Hawking does a hoppin' good job of reconciling the two.

And thank...(hmm, who should I thank?)...(well, would that make sense?)...(eh, why the heck not...)...Einstein that somebody finally said that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Good example: Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Hawking does a hoppin' good job of reconciling the two.

A perhaps even better and surely more ironic example: the devout Charles Darwin and his origin of species... (yes, I'm serious)

Funny, bacteria don't seem to have trouble doing it....


If you analysie an individual bactira cell it will not evolve dispite whatever circumstances you put it through. However get a group of bactira and throw anti-biotics at them and most will die save one or two. These one or two have not "evolved". They havnt "changed" or "mutated" to be diffrent. Bactirai, like every other spieces on this planet have diversity. Though they can be in groups of speices, they still have genetic diffrences between one another, in the same way you have genitic dissimiliraties from your parents. In some cases these genetic diffrences allow them to survive a certian circumstance. This is not evolution, this is nautral selection. The two are very diffrent.

The problem with the evolution theory is our own limited brainpower. To really accept and understand the theory you need to be able to imagine a timespan of aproximately 3.600.000.000 years ( compare that to the say 2.500 years we call history, or the 75 years you'll propably live your self,) multiply that time by aproximately 500.000.000 square kilometers (amount of floor we have on planet Earth, so I haven't even taken 3 dimensions ) And now try to imagine how many lifeforms (that includes single cell organisms, bugs, grass and human beings and a lot more) have lived and died in that enormous area and timespan. And each a time a new one was born, it was an imperfect copy of it's parrent(s) carrying certain features with it too the next generation (you can see this principle in yourself as an imperfect copy of your own parrents.) Try to imagine the number of features that every lifeform could have had that has ever lived on earth.
If you take all these things in account, it isn't hard to imagine that lots and lots and lots of completely different individual lifeforms have walked the earth during it's existence (Don't forget that the cathegorization of species is arbitrary,)
But it's far easier to simply comply to the idea that it was all suddenly there because some allmighty dude said so. That's what belief is all about, filling in the holes in our limited knowledge and understanding. In fact nobody knows exactly what happened in all existence, but it's fun to keep the imagination going. If Neanderthals had built skyscrapers and motorcycles in Northern Europe 140.000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to find a single screw of it back today, because giant glaciers have grinded the area to a pulp. The fossils we have now are only a fragment of the actual story of life on Earth and absolutely no-one can claim to know how, why or what actually happened. We can only claim to have a good idea of it, which is kind of subjective.

GAHH!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!

EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church, the LARGEST RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IN THE WORLDwith over ONE BILLION MEMBERS officially supports the evolution and big bang theories!!!

Would you people please get it into your heads that chrisitanity and evolution are not mutually exclusive!!

hell even better. It was the church that first proposed the theory of Big Bang! so all you catholics must agree with it!!! hahahahaha

<SNIP> If Neanderthals had built skyscrapers and motorcycles in Northern Europe 140.000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to find a single screw of it back today, because giant glaciers have grinded the area to a pulp. The fossils we have now are only a fragment of the actual story of life on Earth and absolutely no-one can claim to know how, why or what actually happened. We can only claim to have a good idea of it, which is kind of subjective.

Great post. Back to the Venus Fly Trap, quite a few people have said it was impossible for a plant like this to evolve. Anyone got any links to pages that propose a theoretical evolutionary path for it? I've found plenty of pages saying that the Venus Fly Trap 'proves' Creation is true, well, at least for that one kind of plant ;-)

Originally posted by Asheim:
Who really bleeding cares how the universe originated? Is this something that will affect your day greatly? For all that I care to believe, the world was made as per the Norse myths. Check them out yourself, I can't be bothered to find a link. I cannot prove it in any way, but noone can PROVE without a doubt how the universe came to be anyway. So please stop.
For all we know, the universe was made when a gigantic spacegoat sneezed. Bah! Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Well, if we knew the origin of the Universe, we would be much closer to understanding the physics of it, because at the moment of the big bang the four basic forces in the universe were the same. The fact that they are no longer the same is one of the main detriments to achieving a grand unifying theory. If we could take the universe back to its beginning, we could understand what they would be like if they were the same. The thing about the Norse Myths and other religions is that these are non-falsifiable. You can't prove them wrong, so supporting them as the answer to everything is a dead end (unless you prove them correct, which might also be impossible). Science makes assertions that can be proven correct or incorrect, so that as various theories are proven false (like "luminiferous aether") or true (like gravity), we come to greater understanding of the universe. Belief in untestable hypotheses like God is fine, as long as you don't let that belief get in the way of studying testable hypotheses. As for your little quip at the end: first -- the special olympics isn't just for retards, but people with any significant disability (as determined by the governing body); second -- I don't agree that all people who argue on the internet are retards, but effectively calling yourself one doesn't make you look any smarter.

Who really bleeding cares how the universe originated? Is this something that will affect your day greatly? For all that I care to believe, the world was made as per the Norse myths. Check them out yourself, I can't be bothered to find a link. I cannot prove it in any way, but noone can PROVE without a doubt how the universe came to be anyway. So please stop.
For all we know, the universe was made when a gigantic spacegoat sneezed. Bah! Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. :D Well, humans have a trait called curiosity. It is the inspiration behind all scientific hypotheses, theories and laws. Without it, we'd be animals.

Besides, we're not arguing how the universe was created. We're arguing about evolution. Besides: It wasn't a goat, it was a turtle with four elephants on top.

Refreshing... good to see someone who will sleep soundly after reading all this BS. No wonder people are stressed, we take everything too seriously.

Yes, well, I look at the world through the eyes of a Muslim who knows full and damn well that if we can't laugh at the world or ourselves, then someone will eventually ask us to strap on a bomb and walk into a marketplace and we'll say "Sounds fun".

Not bad for a non biologist.

NianNorth, you're right - God would create life-forms with the ability to adapt. Otherwise, first environmental change, and there would be extermination.

Like the Flood, you mean..? :)

(Consider me an evolutionist, if labels are needed...)

Besides, we're not arguing how the universe was created. We're arguing about evolution. Besides: It wasn't a goat, it was a turtle with four elephants on top.

Everyone knows Discworld doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

It fell off when the turtle sneezed! :)

Evoltion vs. Creation
An essay my Roma Verzub (that's me!)

Seemingly the Bible and Darwin have nothing in common... or do they?

Back in the 12th century which was WAAY before anyone ever heard of Darwin, many Jewish scholars pointed out that the Bible seems to show how life... what's the word... evolves. First there was fish in the sea (a statement from the Bible that modern day evolutionists have "confirmed") then on land (remember, it says that the animals were BROUGHT FORTH which may mean evolved), and finally there's man. So what's the difference between the Bible and Darwin? The only difference is that the Bible says that God did it, while Darwin said it happened by accident.

But wait a minute! Six days is a lot shorter then the 4 1/2 some billion years that carbon dating suggests life existed.

Have you considered the way the Bible uses "days.”? How could there be days, evenings, and nights, if the sun and moon, which signify them, were not created until the third day? Perhaps the Bible's "days" are really periods of time. They could have lasted decades, or like my Chemistry class on Friday seems, billions of years.

Now here are my problems with natural selection as described by Darwin and evolutionists:

Consider the Eiffel Tower... no let's go even smaller. Consider the Mona Lisa.
http://www.kottke.org/plus/photos/200105europe/monalisa.jpg

Notice how perfect it is. No one would look at it and claim that little pixels of paint joined together on a canvas to create the unique painting. No one can claim that the unique smile she has was simply an accident. Yet, according to evolutionists, that's how the world and how mankind was formed.

Mankind is certainly more complex in a painting or then a tower. The human brain for example is so complex that it hasn't even been able to figure itself out completely yet. How could this have been formed by chance?

Going back to the Eiffel Tower, could the brinks and elevator cables just randomly came together to produce something so unique? Of course not! There was a team of architects that designed it. In our world, God is the master architect, the master painter, and the master what ever else you can think of.

Now lets assume that we CAN evolve, and that mutations occurred in such a way that would make us better. So why hasn't that happened? True, mutations have caused insects resistant to DDT, but has that made them more complex? Even WITH the resistance, they're still the same basic flies. In fact, the majority of mutations observed by scientists have actually made the organism LESS likely to survive, such as a mutation that caused fly wings to be smaller and less crumpled.

And about natural selection, I still find many inconsistencies. For example, the bird. Since it supposedly evolved from bacteria it didn’t always have a wing. And since evolution is a gradual process, it didn’t just not have it one generation, then the kids have it. What supposedly happened is that the wing grew over millions of years… So then some generations would be lugging around a useless half wing. So with all that extra weight, tell me how they were more likely to survive when running from predators.

And tell me about the poisonous types of snakes. Since single cell bacteria don’t emit poison, it had to evolve both the poison emitters and the poison itself separately (since some snakes don’t emit poison). So which did it evolve first? The mechanism to eject poison? Well how would that help it? Did it somehow prophetically know that it would someday eject poison? How would this make it more likely to survive. And there’s the other option, that it evolved the poison first. But if it evolved the poison first with nowhere to store it for ejection, it would have to store it somewhere else, where it would matter and probably poison the snake itself. Yet we have poison emitting snakes today. Is it possible that perhaps they were created to survive? If so, who created them?

And what about the egg of a chicken? Well as you may know, the egg is of a perfect thickness. If it were to be any thinner it would be too thin, and the egg would easily break, thereby endangering the chick inside. If it were any thicker the chick couldn’t peck its way out. So that means in order for there to be chicks and chickens today (which there are) the thickness of the egg had to be perfect the first time.

Similarly is the location of the Earth. The Earth is approximately 93 million miles from the sun. Any closer and we’d all burn. Any farther and we’d freeze. How it is that the Earth is at the exact position it needs to be to support life? Was that also an accident?

Another question is from where did we evolve? According to evolution we all evolved from single celled bacteria that spontaneously generated. Wait, though. Didn’t we already disprove spontaneous generation years ago? Why haven’t scientists them been able to produce bacteria spontaneously? True, they have produced some parts of RNA and types of lipids, but they aren’t alive now are they? Maybe creation of life should be left to just one?

In conclusion, I believe in evolution, but that it was God-instituted, and did not happen randomly on it’s own or by any sort of natural selection or mutation.

If you analysie an individual bactira cell it will not evolve dispite whatever circumstances you put it through. However get a group of bactira and throw anti-biotics at them and most will die save one or two. These one or two have not "evolved". They havnt "changed" or "mutated" to be diffrent. Bactirai, like every other spieces on this planet have diversity. Though they can be in groups of speices, they still have genetic diffrences between one another, in the same way you have genitic dissimiliraties from your parents. In some cases these genetic diffrences allow them to survive a certian circumstance. This is not evolution, this is nautral selection. The two are very diffrent.What caused the genetic differences? Random mutations, that's what.

Say that random mutations might occur that that make the surface of the bacteria look yellow or blue or red (for want of an easy macroscopic equivalent of the external chemical make-up of the cell-wall) and if there was no advantage in being red rather than regular yellow or blue that preceded them, then the 'red' bacteria would do their funky stuff at the same rate as all the other bacteria and thus the colony would remain a mixtures of colours, but otherwise much the same. Red bacteria might not do as well, but as long as they did 'well enough' they could survive when not too cramped by the yellows and blues.

If, however, the red bacteria (either through their red-ness or through some other mutation that occured within the red-progenitory) find themselves able to out-compete the yellow and blue bacteria (who have, by this time, other random changes distributed around their populations) then the red bacteria come to dominate. It might not even be the entire red bacteria faction, as the beneficial change may have occured to only one of the daughters/grand-daughters/great*N grand-daughters of the original 'red', but if that advantage exists within the reds at all, then the reds with that advantage will outcompete the non-advantaged (and, further, the dis-advantaged where an unhelpful change has occured). The advantagous circumstances that the advantage takes part in may not even have existed at the time it arose, and may even be non-genetic (e.g. purely the luck of the position on the petri-dish when conditions changed in another part as part of the cruel experiment by Professor God The Biology Lecturer and his Pippette Of Doom) but for whatever reason, the reds survive the catastrophe and are selected.

Much as you say, this is natural selection, not necessarily evolution. But what if another (previously insigificant) element of the genetic code of most of the red bacteria is a slightly mutated (and largely benign) sequence that allows, by chance, the survival of the host bacteria in the next Pippette Of Doom experiment. What if a dormant mutation, that previously was less competative agains the yellows and blues but survived where the mutation had emerged inactivated, now becomes active. It may not have helped against yellows and blues, but it gives the possessing reds an edge against the non-possessing reds. This sort of thing can continue indefinitely, and end up creating a descendant of the red (who might well look any colour at all, that was just for visualisation purposes) that is drastically different from the yellows and blues that the original reds were essentially part of but only slightly different from.

The earliest red iseffectively the same as the reds and blues, the latest red is vastly different. Over the generations, bits of almost every bit of the DNA have been touched. Some changes did not propogate, some did and some positively thrived.

I could have had a lot more fun with sexually-reproductive creatures than with bacteria. There the reds and greens and yellows could have bred with each other but, after time, the red-descendants could not have bred with the yellows and greens, possibly not even with the original reds themselves. And they could be completely different animals, and if the pressures on each generation were such that the 'better variety' of mutations occured and prospered against the stay-at-homes and the mutation-gone-wrongs, then the descendants might share very little in common with the ancestors, look vastly different (so that if you put them side by side and analysed them to a reasonable degree that you'd think that they were completely different) and if some yellows had made their own bid for hereditary-prosperity on the other end of the petri-dish/savanna/swamp/lake they could be as different as chalk and cheese and exhibit no superficial family-similarities with the reds and probably have taken one of the other millions of solutions to each problem. (The blues died early on, by the way, but that was the luck of the draw). Yet we know (because it is our thought experiment and we have extrapolated the lineage in the example) that they are all related back to the Nth generation. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is.

(And the best thing is, no particular bacterium or creature inbetween the ultimate ancestor and the 'ultimate' descendant need have any idea whether or not it can deal with the future, we just happen to know that the parent of the descendant obviously lived to reproduce and the parent of the parent lived to reproduce and the parent of the parent of the parent lived to reproduce, otherwise the newest subject of our fancy would not have been here. The fact that an emminently well-adapted great*N aunt of the descandant might have been better at surviving the current environment than the descendant themselves but got squashed by overcrowding or by being ousted by a then-more-comptent-but-if-they-were-alive-now-they'd-be-hopeless variety of sibling in the conditions as they existed then...)

That probably does not satisfy everyone. It's definitely too long an explanation, but while it helps to reduce the arguments on occasion, evolution is a mind-numbingly huge thing to consder, as mentioned elsewhere.

Great post. Back to the Venus Fly Trap, quite a few people have said it was impossible for a plant like this to evolve. Anyone got any links to pages that propose a theoretical evolutionary path for it? I've found plenty of pages saying that the Venus Fly Trap 'proves' Creation is true, well, at least for that one kind of plant ;-)

No link, at hand (it's probably Googlable, but I like working with my mind, however wrong I end up being) but we know that leaves can be waxy, hairy, hard, soft, smooth, spiky, etc... If a particular plant had leaves with slightly tacky surface that a fly died on and was a bit better at thriving because of the nutrients that leached out into its system form the rotting corpse, and these plants tend to do well in nutrient-poor soils. Or it might have been a slippery leaf with a pool of water athte bottom of it, or it may be a hairy leaf. Whichever you're looking at, there's a basic mechanism that will have supplemented the plant's normal diet. And if water-filled bowls became slippier and narrower (harder to fly out of) and the sticky leaves became stickier and more finger-like and if the hairy leaf was angled so that the fly's struggles took it further into the 'V' of the leaf, then you get plants with more nutrients who thrive.

As to the snapping shut off the leaf, plant leaves already have mechanisms for orienting leaves and floweres towards the sun, opening and closing petals at certain times of day (according to which creatures they have adapted to attract and be pollinated by) and the mechanism could easily have been integrated via transcription into the 'joit' between the two leaf-halves...

No real mystery, and, as we have seen above, plants do sense sunlight and rainfall and take automotive action to take advantage of/avoid such things, and while there's no 'central nervous system' or even anything that we'd expect any self-respecting Triffid to possess, I really can't see it being much of a stretch for a 'normal' plant's automotive mechanisms to be hijacked in such a way with a bit of trial-and-error mutation when a couple of leaf-hairs have been jostled...

Similarly is the location of the Earth. The Earth is approximately 93 million miles from the sun. Any closer and we’d all burn. Any farther and we’d freeze. How it is that the Earth is at the exact position it needs to be to support life? Was that also an accident?


The Earth, with us on it, exists where it is because, if it weren't at the perfect distance, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. Our very existence on this planet REQUIRES perfect conditions. It does not happen by coincidence--it happens by necessity. If the Earth were too close or too far to the Sun, we would never have been able to survive to realize the fact. Or, if we did eventually evolve into some organism that is capable of surviving in different circumstances, we would call those circumstances "perfect" for us.

EVOLUTION IS WRONG

it should me made illegal!

think of the CHILDREN

what will the first day of school be like for the mutated child? how much torment will he endure before he is old enough to crush the other kids with his super powers? how low will his self esteem be?

we must stop this NOW before it gets out of hand. think of how humiliated the first monkey with opposable thumbs was when the other kids found out he could hold a banana with one hand!

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

STOP THE MADNESS

The Earth, with us on it, exists where it is because, if it weren't at the perfect distance, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. Our very existence on this planet REQUIRES perfect conditions. It does not happen by coincidence--it happens by necessity. If the Earth were too close or too far to the Sun, we would never have been able to survive to realize the fact. Or, if we did eventually evolve into some organism that is capable of surviving in different circumstances, we would call those circumstances "perfect" for us.If the earth were a different distance from the sun, then a life form for which THAT distance provided the optimum temperature would have - dare I say it? - evolved.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.
The evolution theory doesn't say species 'evolve' in the strict sense of the word, it's all about natural selection. For instance, in case a disease breaks out, the specimens with a larger resistance to that disease have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing, and because all non-resistant specimens are gradually whiped out by that disease, in the long run all specimens will be resistant to that disease. That can go really fast, there's evidence indicating all it takes is one generation in some cases. Of course this is just a simplified example.

That's also why species are adapted to living in a certain area, the specimens who can survive better under certain circumstances have a greater chance of reproducing and that's how eventually species become adapted to living in a certain area.

Evolution by natural selection, that's what it's all about. ;)

You can find a lot of interesting information and links about the evolution theory here (in an introduction to the article 'Was Darwin Wrong?' which appeared in the National Geographic Magazine): http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

Note that I'm a catholic myself, but I don't believe God created man in its current form at one time in the last 10,000 years (as apparantly 45% of all Americans do).

If you analysie an individual bactira cell it will not evolve dispite whatever circumstances you put it through. However get a group of bactira and throw anti-biotics at them and most will die save one or two. These one or two have not "evolved". They havnt "changed" or "mutated" to be diffrent. Bactirai, like every other spieces on this planet have diversity. Though they can be in groups of speices, they still have genetic diffrences between one another, in the same way you have genitic dissimiliraties from your parents. In some cases these genetic diffrences allow them to survive a certian circumstance. This is not evolution, this is nautral selection. The two are very diffrent.


then start with one single cell. there can be no genetic variation within a population of one. and bacteria reproduce by making copies of themselves, yeah? so if you let a single cell reproduce into a whole group, they should all be identical, right? now you divide that colony into two seperate colonies (or three or four, etc). then you do something that will kill one of the colonies completely - like give it a large dose of anti-biotics. give the other one a lower dose, so that it kills many but not all of the cells. let it re-grow and do it again, and again, and again. make the anti-biotics a normal part of their environment. eventually the entire colony will be able to thrive under the same conditions that killed off the other one completely. and since we started with one cell, this would be impossible without mutation. ta-da!

Can you prove that G-d doesnt exist? I mean have you not seen him? I've seen him... and died...and been ressurected... 3 days later.. for i am your lord and savior... Twix.

Can you prove that he does?
I think not.
Nobody can prove either way.
So let's all turn agnostic and make sense!
Or, we can just sit around and flame each other about all this. Yeah, that's more fun.

If the earth were a different distance from the sun, then a life form for which THAT distance provided the optimum temperature would have - dare I say it? - evolved.

exactly. especially since the earth already has lifeforms that live next to volcanic vents and in boiling hot springs, as well as things living in the tundra and on top of glaciers and ice caps. or the ones living in cracks between rocks deep underground, or super deep in the ocean. life is so much cooler than creationists give it credit for.

then start with one single cell. there can be no genetic variation within a population of one. and bacteria reproduce by making copies of themselves, yeah? so if you let a single cell reproduce into a whole group, they should all be identical, right? now you divide that colony into two seperate colonies (or three or four, etc). then you do something that will kill one of the colonies completely - like give it a large dose of anti-biotics. give the other one a lower dose, so that it kills many but not all of the cells. let it re-grow and do it again, and again, and again. make the anti-biotics a normal part of their environment. eventually the entire colony will be able to thrive under the same conditions that killed off the other one completely. and since we started with one cell, this would be impossible without mutation. ta-da!

Ouch, can you say pwned?
Yeah, it's funny that guy is claiming that scientific tests that have already been carried out, like the one you mentioned, cannot possibly work. They already have, and it's a bit late for anybody to disprove them...

Ouch, can you say pwned?
Yeah, it's funny that guy is claiming that scientific tests that have already been carried out, like the one you mentioned, cannot possibly work. They already have, and it's a bit late for anybody to disprove them...

well, for most of them you have to give them a bit of a break. they are genuinely ignorant of all of modern science. sad, but fixable. its only when they still refuse to accept things after you have shown them how they work and whatever, that they really get annoying. because essentially they choose madness over inconvenient facts. their leaders are the worst though. on some level they have to know that they are lying to people when they use the same arguments that have been discredited, even by other creationists, if they think it will convince some ignorant fool to not accept evolution.

then start with one single cell. there can be no genetic variation within a population of one. and bacteria reproduce by making copies of themselves, yeah? so if you let a single cell reproduce into a whole group, they should all be identical, right? now you divide that colony into two seperate colonies (or three or four, etc). then you do something that will kill one of the colonies completely - like give it a large dose of anti-biotics. give the other one a lower dose, so that it kills many but not all of the cells. let it re-grow and do it again, and again, and again. make the anti-biotics a normal part of their environment. eventually the entire colony will be able to thrive under the same conditions that killed off the other one completely. and since we started with one cell, this would be impossible without mutation. ta-da!

Since bactira do not clone themselves, you logic is flawed.

I have seen evolution happen, in lab experiments that I have done, I have put bacteria in forign environments and watched them change over time. For instance, I put a fast replicating bacteria (no I do not have names, I am on brake) in swamp water from a soup of protiens and sugars and nothing else. I watched it change the position of the nucleus to avoid quick attacks that could esily kill it and the cell wall became thicker and let in different substances, suggesting that its ribosomes, nucleus, and golgi bodys changed, changing the rest of the cell. Explain this creationists!

I have seen evolution happen, in lab experiments that I have done, I have put bacteria in forign environments and watched them change over time. For instance, I put a fast replicating bacteria (no I do not have names, I am on brake) in swamp water from a soup of protiens and sugars and nothing else. I watched it change the position of the nucleus to avoid quick attacks that could esily kill it and the cell wall became thicker and let in different substances, suggesting that its ribosomes, nucleus, and golgi bodys changed, changing the rest of the cell. Explain this creationists!

Nautral selection, not evolution.

Since bactira do not clone themselves, you logic is flawed.

no, but they are only capable of making exact genetic copies

so if you start with one, and mutation is impossible, there can be no differances, and all would die from anti-biotics, no matter what

Hey, that bacteria example is pretty good! Here's another one.

You've got two individuals. One possesses a beneficial adaptation, that we'll call "reason." The other possesses a detrimental trait, one that we'll call "belief in Christian science." You subject both these individuals to massive paper cuts. While the reasonable specimen goes to the hospital for a transfusion, the specimen with the detrimental trait bleeds out in a flurry of prayer. While the one dies because of his adherence to some ancient hokum, the other lives to procreate another day! Evolution at work!

Hey, that bacteria example is pretty good! Here's another one.

You've got two individuals. One possesses a beneficial adaptation, that we'll call "reason." The other possesses a detrimental trait, one that we'll call "belief in Christian science." You subject both these individuals to massive paper cuts. While the reasonable specimen goes to the hospital for a transfusion, the specimen with the detrimental trait bleeds out in a flurry of prayer. While the one dies because of his adherence to some ancient hokum, the other lives to procreate another day! Evolution at work!

hurray for social darwinism

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.


A cell might not be able to evolve, but an organism can due to change of environment over a period of time. And its already proven that high intense heat can spawn life

Since bactira do not clone themselves, you logic is flawed.

um, bacteria reproduce by a process known as binary fission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_fission). in it the cell makes a duplicate copy of its dna and then splits into two ideally identical cells. if the copies aren't identical, i win and you lose.

no, but they are only capable of making exact genetic copies

so if you start with one, and mutation is impossible, there can be no differances, and all would die from anti-biotics, no matter what

Isnt it more likely that Anti Biotics are not unviersally effective? Rather than finding the diffrence in a bactira, isnt it more likely that you cant kill all bactira with anti-biotics. And even if what you say is true, cant it just be bactira adapting "WITHOUT" gentics. Humans develop a tan when they are exposed to high levels of UV light. That doesnt mean they are "mutating".

1) Science I believe is anything that doesn't contradict a religion (which most of what people consider science does, it doesn't contradict a religon)

2) Evolution can be considered atheism.

3) Most of the world is biased. If someone told you that scientists have proven that dirt is alive, would most people believe that? Not at the moment but given time, teachers teaching it, and etc it'll take hold. Adolf Hitler "If someone hears a lie long enough, loud enough, and enough times then he will believe" (or something very similar)

4) Propoganda is rampant throughout the world.

5) Is it better to take a chance and believe that there is a supernatural being or to not believe? No chance, nothing gained. Chance, chance that you will gain.

6) Evolution and the big bang theory often contradict other religions such as Christianity (by the worlds definition), Islam (as far as I know), and Judaism.

7) Evolution states that there is a change in the genes. As far as I know this has never happened. A physical appearance may change but nothing that makes the animal a different being.

8) As far as I know 'life' has never been made in a test tube. Some of the protiens for DNA have been but not DNA.


9) Oh ya, any changes that have occureder in DNA are commonly a 'mistake' which tends to cause death. Take cancer, deformed sperm, and there are probably hundreds of other examples. But the point is most deformations in a gene lead to death, otherwise it simply leads to more deformations in the family which over time may kill the creature.
Just a few things I would like to point out. Any questions? Send a telegram.

Anglo-Saxon America - if you're actually trying to persuade people, could you give us more than a couple of brief sentences, and in layman's terms? We don't necessarily understand what you mean by "spontaneously generate".

However, I'd take a shrewd guess that you're saying it's impossible for a creature to change its genetic makeup during the course of its lifetime, which is entirely true. That's not what evolution means (whatever "Pokemon" or post-apocalyptic films like "Mad Max" would have you believe). Evolution means that via mutation (and the creature is born a mutant, and we have tangible proof that mutants exist at all levels of life - the mutants themselves) diversity is created in the population, and via natural selection diversity is emphasised and exaggerated and leads to the development of branching species. I don't see how that's "Atheist propaganda". It's entirely logical, a lot more logical than "There's a big man in the sky who made the world in seven days. I know this because some people like me wrote a book that says so."

I think the conclusive disproof of Creationism lies in the line "God made the Sun and the Moon - get this - to Live in the Day and the Night."

Isnt it more likely that Anti Biotics are not unviersally effective? Rather than finding the diffrence in a bactira, isnt it more likely that you cant kill all bactira with anti-biotics.

that would hold true over differant species of bacteria, or even differant genetics within the same strain

but if you are starting with one isolated bactera, and through binary fission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_fission) ;) it makes an exact duplicate copy.

so, if mutation is impossible, if that individual bacteria is not immune to the anti-biotic, each genetic copy it makes of itself will also be suseptable to it, without the possibility of growing a resistance, since mutation is of course impossible :p

If anyone wants evidence of how sex may have started I give you this which was in todays paper:

http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/uncgi/archive/7displaystory?2004/12/16+225.raw

Anglo-Saxon America - if you're actually trying to persuade people, could you give us more than a couple of brief sentences, and in layman's terms? We don't necessarily understand what you mean by "spontaneously generate".

However, I'd take a shrewd guess that you're saying it's impossible for a creature to change its genetic makeup during the course of its lifetime, which is entirely true. That's not what evolution means (whatever "Pokemon" or post-apocalyptic films like "Mad Max" would have you believe). Evolution means that via mutation (and the creature is born a mutant, and we have tangible proof that mutants exist at all levels of life - the mutants themselves) diversity is created in the population, and via natural selection diversity is emphasised and exaggerated and leads to the development of branching species. I don't see how that's "Atheist propaganda". It's entirely logical, a lot more logical than "There's a big man in the sky who made the world in seven days. I know this because some people like me wrote a book that says so."

I think the conclusive disproof of Creationism lies in the line "God made the Sun and the Moon - get this - to Live in the Day and the Night."

But what is more logical? Saying a supernatural being created stuff out of nothing? Or that 0=39584638 (which is what the big bang and evolution state)? Also mutants tend to breed more mutants which are more defective. Most mutants die anyways because of their mutation.

Also mutants tend to breed more mutants which are more defective. Most mutants die anyways because of their mutation.

actually, every single human being contains a number of mutations. the vast majority of mutations are either completely nuetral or only slightly better or worse than the non-mutated gene. only a tiny minority are immediately fatal or fatastically awesome. mutations are almost never defective in a pejorative sense. just different.

actually, every single human being contains a number of mutations. the vast majority of mutations are either completely nuetral or only slightly better or worse than the non-mutated gene. only a tiny minority are immediately fatal or fatastically awesome. mutations are almost never defective in a pejorative sense. just different.
Say nothing of all those errors in non-coding regions of DNA, which I believe are harmless (or near enough so it doesn't matter).

Or that 0=39584638

Sorry, how does evolution state that? I must have missed that in Darwininian theory.

is the poster to this thread a moron?

neither evolution or religion can be 100% true for we know shit.
now, as an intellectual, i'd have to say that saying evolution has no facts and christianty does is just plain ignorant, moronic, and blatant to your drive for religion over facts.
thx

Sorry, how does evolution state that? I must have missed that in Darwininian theory.

i think it was in chapter 4 of the third edition of On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

right after the bit about the various natural tendencies of different cats to catch different prey.

the biggest flaw i see in evolution is that it's basis is contradictory to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (complexity moves toward simplicity, not the other way around). there are no contradictions in existence to this 2nd law.


It also depends on where you set your limits. If you take a look at a bacterial or viral genome (viruses aren't alive technically, but they do evolve) many genes overlap. Since it obeys the second law of thermodynamics I can conclude that the whole reason this thread was started can be explained easily away by scientific means.

Organisms evolving into niches also obeys this 2nd law.

As the number of variables increases the 2nd law becomes less applicable. Everything from radiation, overcrowding, starvation, salinity, viruses, predatory organizms and so forth can cause the organism to react and change, or die. Adapt or die.

Evolution has been proven through computer simulation as well. I don't know if this is the organization that did the first research but it is something I found on the internet and I'm giving it a look.

http://www.agner.org/evolution/

BTW.

To those way back when that don't know how a venus flytrap can evolve.

You clearly have never tried to find out.

1) Go to google.com

2) venus flytrap evolve

3) Click "I'm Feeling Lucky"

4) Read. Or, alternatively, scroll down to the big picture of the venus flytrap and read the couple of paragraphs around there. Or read the entire page for a look at more examples of pseudo-irreducible-complexity.

Not the second law again? Come on, if you think it was that obvious we wouldn't have noticed it yet?

1) Science I believe is anything that doesn't contradict a religion (which most of what people consider science does, it doesn't contradict a religon)

2) Evolution can be considered atheism.

3) Most of the world is biased. If someone told you that scientists have proven that dirt is alive, would most people believe that? Not at the moment but given time, teachers teaching it, and etc it'll take hold. Adolf Hitler "If someone hears a lie long enough, loud enough, and enough times then he will believe" (or something very similar)

4) Propoganda is rampant throughout the world.

5) Is it better to take a chance and believe that there is a supernatural being or to not believe? No chance, nothing gained. Chance, chance that you will gain.

6) Evolution and the big bang theory often contradict other religions such as Christianity (by the worlds definition), Islam (as far as I know), and Judaism.

1) Your belief is wrong. Because I say so.

2) It is. It doesn't have a creator-figure. This was adressed before in this thread.

3) Indeed most of the world is biased, and many people believe in God (in one form/name or another), because so many people tell them he's there.

4) Indeed it is. Religion is rampant around the world.

5) No, it's not better to take a chance. It's better to try and find out for sure.

6) You're a keen observer, aren't you? Yes, new information contradicts old information. This happens in everything, not just religion and science.

I'll not address the last 3 points as I don't think I'm qualified to get into them.
You'll notice that I'm using the exact same approach as he is - contradict his explanations without proving mine. This, too, has been pointed out to be a favored tactic of those in favor of creationism.
Personally I think God is the easy way out. It's much easier to just say "someone did it for me" than to find out why it happened.
There's tons of stuff I have opinions on that have been grinding through here, but there's just too much to start going through. Besides, I think this thread has served it's purpose already.

Edit: Small mispress. Only by 6 keys to the right! :(

You have 2 islands (Island A and Island B), each island has the same species of bird, we'll call the bird Bird X. Bird X, for the most part have soft beaks, some harder than others though. Just like in people how some people have bigger muscles naturally than others. One day on island A all the food accessible to Bird X dies. Some of the Bird X's have harder beaks than others and manage and find a food source accessible only to the harder beeks of Bird X. Those of Bird X who have a soft beak die off due to lack of food while the hard beaked ones survive and have offspring. It is not long before all the birds on Island A are all hard beaked. Now lets throw in a million years. Dozens and Dozens of these changes would have occured on both islands. Each island would have different changes causing the species to SLOWLY change into different species of bird to best survive in their environment.

Um this guy who started this thread is a complete moron probably some stupid preteen who found something on the internet.

First Christianity and the Pope fully accept and support evolution.

Second WHat supprts the theory of God creating everything...Pictures...Video! No just a bunch of old poverbs and books most false with a deeper meaning!

Third SCience is the best and most elaborate thing to humankind. It is on our side Idiot! Science Is not a bunch of theorys its the solving of theorys. Like the big bang is a theory that wasnt solved but evolution is solved there was and is a thing called evolution. Monkeys birds and animals have all evolved.

Fourth dont start anything unless you know what the hell your talking about!


^ is a brief not so exact summary dont hold it against me in any way!

Well ... I have kids. I mean ... I can clearly see that none of the kids look exactly like me or my wife or any member of the respective families, but rather like a combination of such things.

If such vast change can happen in a single generation, I can use my imagination to fill in what 20,000 generations can do.

I love this post.

Synopsis: A man who admits he has no 'education' in the field of biology shows a far better INTUITIVE understanding of the subject than the so-called scientists trying to push this week's pseudoscientific 'evidence'.

Isnt it more likely that Anti Biotics are not unviersally effective? Rather than finding the diffrence in a bactira, isnt it more likely that you cant kill all bactira with anti-biotics. And even if what you say is true, cant it just be bactira adapting "WITHOUT" gentics. Humans develop a tan when they are exposed to high levels of UV light. That doesnt mean they are "mutating".

Actually, they have sequenced bacteria at various stages of resistance and have noticed genetic changes.

=======

From the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html

How Antibiotic Resistance Happens

Antibiotic resistance results from gene action. Bacteria acquire genes conferring resistance in any of three ways.

In spontaneous DNA mutation, bacterial DNA (genetic material) may mutate (change) spontaneously (indicated by starburst). Drug-resistant tuberculosis arises this way.

======

As a result they have divided these bacteria (and many others for various other reasons) into species, strains and sub strains.

As a side note: You are correct in saying that there is no universal antibiotic. Which is why there are countless types of antibiotics to battle certain bacteria. Vancomycin is pretty effective but there are strains becoming resistant to that as well.

BTW: Have you noticed that humans who live in the hottest and sunniest places on earth have the darkest skin ;) and vice versa with colder and paler skinned people.

So, you are saying that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals...
Mmmh, then that means that evolution is not wrong, doesn't it?


No, its intraspecies. There is a huge difference between changes within the same species and one species evolving from another.

CONCERNING THE VENUS FLYTRAP

A venus flytrap isn't that different in behaviour compared to a flower.

- Both attract insects to their 'flower/bud' area with a sweet nectar.
- Both flowers and flytraps have opening and closing mechanisms: Flowers 'bloom' and flytraps slam down on insects.
- Flytrap 'teeth' are just modifies petal leaves.

Flowers themselves are very very complex. One of my favorites in this respect is the orchid. So many varieties and they have such a close relationship with insects its amazing and proof that the two have co-evolved. Plants, regardless of species, have a difficult time reproducing if not for insects. I'm not surprised a few species have evolved the ability to eat insects due to this close relationship. Pitcher plants, venus flytraps, sundews, and so forth.

http://www.largo.org/carol/plants.htm
http://www.splammo.net/ppproj/litrev1.html

I don't think you give plants much credit since they don't seem like they are doing much just sitting there and growing. Trust me, they are doing things.

EDIT:

I remembered a program from NOVA on PBS that was about orchids and their co-evolution with bees.

LINKS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/orchid/smarts.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_02.html

I found this program to be well done, informative and just plain amazing. I had a whole new respect for flowers since then.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
I suspect you need to reassess your views a bit. Evolution is still a "theory" only because it has not been irrefutably proven, although it has been shown to be the primary method by which life forms change and develop into new species. The evidence is overwhelming and if you believe otherwise it's because you're simply ignoring it.

On the other hand, I see no inherent contradictions between evolution and basic Christianity. The "conflict" between the two is specious and has been blown all out of proportion by those who think their faith is somehow threatened if every word of the Bible isn't literally true. That, in my own humble opinion, is an exceedingly weak and shaky "faith."

Response to Romish Moldova:
Darwinian evolution doesn't state creatures evolved despite a small chance of this happening, but that creatures evolved because odds favor organisms with certain traits. Odds do not favor the proliferation of Mona Lisas or Eiffel Towers, because these things are incapable of reproduction. Odds do favor the proliferation of organisms because all that is required for this is for compounds to meet in certain ways that they already tend to do (at least for carbon-based compounds) and self-replicating mixtures of chemicals will exist.
The fact that humans can't yet fully comprehend how life might exist on its own does not mean it cannot exist on its own. People have failed to understand many things and called them miracles, until they figured out that what was happening was simply a natural process. Automatically claiming that only God could have created life as it is (because we don't yet understand how it works) limits the study of how life forms and evolves. Even if belief in God is correct, it should not be used as a basis for keeping us from understanding our universe.
Although the majority of mutations scientists have observed make mutants less likely to survive, scientists have also recorded modern mutations that make organisms more likely to survive. The point of natural selection is that this is the way that it is supposed to happen. Creatures with good traits survive. Creatures with bad traits don't. Also the fact that we are not currently seeing any species-into-new-species evolution does not mean that this never occured. First, this fails to consider that evolution takes millions of years, and we have not been studying it for that long. Second, evolution should be even slower now than it was before, because we are more evolved organisms, and mutations are less likely to make an individual better than we already are.
Also, natural selection does not imply the evolution of particular organs but of the chromosomes that cause the organism to have that organ. Having wings and feathers was not too much of a change from having webbed hands and feat and having scales (in terms of the the chromosomes that cause these traits, not the traits themselves). In other words, a small mutation in the genes of an organism can cause it to be drastically different enough that it has a new organ that gives it a better chance of survival. This not only applies to birds evolving from reptiles, but to your example of poisonous snakes as well. All that is required for an animal to secrete a different chemical than normal is a small change in the hormones that cause this chemical secretion. If enough of these small mutations occured, eventually some individual snake would secrete a chemical that is poisonous to other organisms, and this snake would pass on its gene because it would have a greater chance of surviving with this added protection. The method to eject poisining was already there because the poisinous secretion came from a gland that already existed. Evolution also answers your egg example. Although in this case we should take eggs all the way back to the beginning of their evolution, with fish. Fish eggs are the perfect thickness because the fish themselves use this same balance in some of their organs to keep that organ protected. As fish evolved into amphibians (through lung-fish) they slowly adjusted to being more thick skinned so they could survive in dryer and dryer climates. It shouldn't be surprising that as they evolved into being less dependant on constantly having water, they didn't waste water as much by having soft-shelled eggs. It was a natural consequence of being able to survive outside of water in the first place.
However, evolution does not answer your question about why the earth is so perfect for life. Physics does. The earth does not need to be at an exact distance from the sun in order to have the potential for life. In fact the distance between the earth and the sun changes during the course of the year, being furthest away during the Northern Hemisphere's Summer, and closest during the Winter. All of these distances, as well as distances one or two million miles more extreme than these, can contain planets capable of sustaining life. Given the amount of stars in the galaxy, the amount of galaxies in the universe, and the amount of possible total universes, having life develop on one planet anywhere is highly likely.
Finally, although we have disproven spontaneous generation, we have not disproven abiogenisis -- that carbon-based compounds formed in the early oceans and atmosphere and viroid-like DNA or RNA compounds "fed" on mitochondria and other organic materials in order to replicate themselves, until these symbiotic relationships eventually became a whole cell. The possibility of matter coming together in this way is not as bad as some creationists think it is. The following link leads to an essay about what the odds of abiogenesis really are: click here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html).

No, its intraspecies. There is a huge difference between changes within the same species and one species evolving from another.
Umm.

Homo neanderthalensis != Homo sapiens.


They aren't the same species.

Ya. We do. It's wrong, but oh well. That's what Makes us flawed, at least that's what I believe.

I believe that the basic premise of evolution is entirely wrong. That is, one species evolving into another, more complex species over a matter of millions of years. (Though the millions of years is another story). Let me first state that I am a christian, and a Creationist in the general sense, which means I believe we were created by an intelligent designer. However, I believe that many things about the theory of evolution are correct, such as natural selection. The evolving part I find complete and utter bull. I'm not going to debate this from a religious standpoint. This is from a scientific standpoint.

First of all, evolution can prove itself wrong. Natural selection, and survival of the fittest say that species will change for the better to adapt to their environments. That's all well and true. The theory of evolution says that reptiles evolved over millions of years into birds. Ok. But what of the intermediate forms? The reptile would have had to, over millions of years, gradullay develop wings, feathers, etc. So, these intermediate forms of the reptile-bird don't have wings, but nubs. But it doesn't do the reptile any good. They're changing, but the wings/ nubs wouldn't do any better than regular limbs...so how would the ones without nubs get killed off by natural selection if they're doing just as well as those with them? It doesn't add up.

Another major point I have is a rather large and complicated one, dealing with the amount of genetic information in a certain living organism. Evolution states that we, and every other living organism, developed out of single cell bacteria. Alright. The problem is, those single cells have a very limited amount of genetic information. Say, about enough information to fill a 200 page book. We, as humans, have enough genetic info to fill a library of thousands of books. The problem here, is adding enough genetic information to cause mutations, to cause organisms to evolve. In fact, Scienctists can't prove that one letter of genetic code can be added. You can't just have mutations, and add genetic code. It doesn't work that way. Mutations only change the genetic code.

I've looked at it logically, and religiously. I can really only come to the conclusion that something must have influenced the way we came about. I mean, scientists are missing something that either came about, or something the lord above did to influence it. It's the only conclusion I can really draw.

A couple of links:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

http://www.highschoolscience.com/conf/enemy.pdf

Answer these questions, please, if you can.

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is: does it provide answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory, it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Below are a few of the questions that should be answered.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Ears evolve?
5. Eyes evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Source:http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheFalseReligionofEvolution.htm

1. Prove god exists?

Thanks for the links on the Venus Fly Trap, I hope to get time to read up on them. Seems like some people thought I was being stupid by not being able to find some pages with the evolutionary path of those kinds of plants, to defend myself, I just didn't find them, probably using the wrong words in google. So thanks to all that responded with links :-)

Well, you notice that Neadrethals were actually supposed to be far superior to modern humans in just about every aspect. I'd wager that they were the originals, we're the prodects of that incest.

However, the incest only lasted a few generations. The early people had many children, so a few generations down the road, you'd be pretty sure of not marrying you're relatives.

Incest = mass mutations is a myth. Only slightly increases chances of a 3rd eye.

Next is Neadrethals, we do not have any gene that belonged SOLEY to Neadrethals in us. So lets not bring Neadrethals into this guy.

originally posted by Anglo-Saxon America
No, its intraspecies. There is a huge difference between changes within the same species and one species evolving from another.

Neanderthals are not the same species as modern humans. Here is a link to a creationist website that disagrees with you on scientific grounds: click here (http://www.answersincreation.org/neanderthal.htm).
Apparently, you are not as informed as other creationists.

Neanderthals are not the same species as modern humans. Here is a link to a creationist website that disagrees with you on scientific grounds: click here (http://www.answersincreation.org/neanderthal.htm).
Apparently, you are not as informed as other creationists.

Thanks for backing up the Neanderthals.

Okay, I didn't realize this would explode into such a large thread. Since I actually have a life outside of this computer, I've only read a few pages of this since I logged off last night. What I've seen shows me the following:

1) The vast majority of you people do not understand the process of logic:

You cannot prove a statement true. You can provide evidence to support it and show it logical, but you cannot prove a positive statement. You can only disprove them. Therefore, you present theories, and you eliminate. The two theories I presented are creationism and evolution. I cannot prove creationism, and you cannot prove evolution. You can only disprove them, and thus, my job is to disprove evolution. I can provide supporting evidence for creationism, but I cannot prove it.

2) A lot of people don't understand the difference between micro and macro:

Microevolution is intraspecies. It all occurs within the same species, and it is visible in everyday life, and I do acknowledge its existence.
Macroevolution is one species evolving into another. I challenge you to provide one example of this happening that has been "observed" as microevolution is.

We're not discussing microevolution here, we're discussing macro.

3) Limiting the topic of discussion makes you look stupid:

If evolution doesn't have a starting place, it couldn't happen. Further debate is pointless, and trying to exclude this evidence because its not part of the actually evolving process is as good as admitting its true.

4) And yes, irreducible complexity is supporting evidence for intelligent design. Furthermore, its a scientiffic theory that contradicts evolution, so one's right and the other's wrong. Therefore, prove irreducible complexity wrong. That is you're challenge. If it can't be proven wrong, then it stands, and evolution falls.

5) There is supporting evidence for Creationism and Christianity. I didn't get into all the technical stuff in my first post because it would have taken up the space of a book. Y'all took the defensive because of that, and I think I'll keep it that way. It works more in my favor. If you have an attack on creationism, an argument against it, I will answer that, but for now I am content to do the attacking.

Umm.

Homo neanderthalensis != Homo sapiens.


They aren't the same species.


Um... check you're facts again, pal.

We are: Homo sapien sapien

They are: Homo sapien neanderthalensis

Sub species of the same species are still the same species.

Response to Romish Moldova:
Darwinian evolution doesn't state creatures evolved despite a small chance of this happening, but that creatures evolved because odds favor organisms with certain traits. <SNIP>

Great post, also recent experiments have looked at whether or not the subatomic world has a very important role to play in the creation of life. Don't forget that however mad quantum physics might seem you yourself, if you didn't beleive it and had the money, could reproduce the experiments that have shown quantum effects. At the end of the day you'll always get back to the question of existence, not of life, but of anything. Matter and energy. Accept life for what it is, a working of matter and energy, then focus your attention on why any matter or energy exists in the first place, this is a much more interesting question!

1. Prove god exists?


Here we go again: you don't get logic do you?

It is impossible to prove God exists. That is a positive statement, proving his existence in an infinite and thus impossible task.

You have to prove he doesn't exist.

However, just to provide some logical evidence that does support his existence: the existence of a God, specifically the one described in the Bible, violates no scientiffic laws. It is completely possible within the realm of KNOWN science, not including theory.

Also, take a look at the cellular processes. This is also evidence for intelligent design. The processes of cells are not merely chemical reactions. The agents involved act as if guided intelligently. They behave outside of their chemical nature. Why do you think that is?

Apparently, you are not as informed as other creationists.

creationists disagree with each other over all sorts of stuff. like whether any particular hominid is 'obviously an ape' or 'obviously a human' (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html).

Thanks for the links on the Venus Fly Trap, I hope to get time to read up on them. Seems like some people thought I was being stupid by not being able to find some pages with the evolutionary path of those kinds of plants, to defend myself, I just didn't find them, probably using the wrong words in google. So thanks to all that responded with links :-)

I don't know how helpful they will be, it was mostly background information, really.

I was pointing out that the venus flytrap is perfectly understandable when we look at the co-evolution of flowers and insects. Its weird looking for sure, but that's not proof of God.

That's another point, on this forum, as soon as anyone asks the question why matter/energy vs nothing, noone has replied. Is it because life is so complicated? So our universe is not complicated enough to even consider it's existance even without the life aspect of it? It's oh so human to only consider life, like we are the be-all and end-all, we're not. Not saying what we acheived isn't impressive, but doesn't anyone else think a 'dead' universe with stars and planets and gas and asteroids is pretty damn impressive too? I know I do!

5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

it makes little sense because you omitted some 200 million years of dinosaurs in between reptiles and birds
feathers were just a byproduct of an animal becoming endothermic; it's insulation, which later aided in flight

I just want to say I havent laughed this hard since I was a little girl*, thank you christians for making my day more enjoyable.

* is a quote...

Im a christian who beleives in creationism, however I will contradict you. Creationism has no unique facts to support it. Anything you can offer as proof of creationism can be applied to any number of other theories. No proof, but I beleive it anyway, thats what faith means. ON the flip side, the scientific world does still consider evolution as the predominate theory, but at lack for a better one. THere has been much scientific evidence caSting signifigant doubt on evolution as an origin. As far as evolution as a continuing proscess, no one in their right minds can deny that, it happens, we've seen it happen, period.

Originally posted by Free Soviets:
creationists disagree with each other over all sorts of stuff. like whether any particular hominid is 'obviously an ape' or 'obviously a human'.

Well put. I was saying that this person happens to be less familiar with evolutionary theory than other creationists, which I thought would imply that creationists disagree. I think the problem with creationist theory is that the supporters begin with an assumption (god created the universe in such and such a way) and then try to prove it. Thus, those who begin with different assumptions about what the Bible is saying end up with different results to support their claims. Even though Evolution and Christianity are not necessarilly seperate studies, we should treat them as such, so that no one feels compeled to come up with certain evidence just so they can continue to believe their religion.

That's another point, on this forum, as soon as anyone asks the question why matter/energy vs nothing, noone has replied. Is it because life is so complicated? So our universe is not complicated enough to even consider it's existance even without the life aspect of it? It's oh so human to only consider life, like we are the be-all and end-all, we're not. Not saying what we acheived isn't impressive, but doesn't anyone else think a 'dead' universe with stars and planets and gas and asteroids is pretty damn impressive too? I know I do!
you do realise that this is not the topic at hand.

if you need help, look at the thread title. evolution is not the big bang, it is not abiogenesis, it is not anything like that. it is simply the evolution of life. anything outside the adaptation of life to its environments is not relevant to the theory of evolution.

Um... check you're facts again, pal.

We are: Homo sapien sapien

They are: Homo sapien neanderthalensis

Sub species of the same species are still the same species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29

Wrong again. Try to stay current on these things.