Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[laurasaur]

Isn't the big bang theory and creationism mutually exclusive? If you believe in the big bang then you must also believe in the quantum fluctuations which caused th formation of hydrogen and helium and thus ultimately the formation of stars and our solar system. This is a natural process - not the design of a diety.

Also, if god is thought to have always existed and it does not need a creator then why must the universe have a creator? Couldn't it also have always existed. Did god create the universe or did the universe create god?

God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

However, if you are meaning ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ then..

Everything which has a beginning has a cause
The universe has a beginning
Therefore the universe has a cause

God, unlike the universe, had no beginning and therefore doesnt need a cause.

In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

Im taking it you guys all understand basic physics... and there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. Shown from the most fundamental laws of physics (laws of thermodynamics):

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

ok now im taking from someone who explains much better than me:

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

In Summary
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

[laurasaur]

How long has the Big Bang theory been around? How long as existential knowledge of DNA been around?

It's very uncouth to assume that just because Mr. Scientist can't understand evolution that it's not true. We have fossils of neanderthals/ancient humanoids yes? Surely you can see the connection between humans and neanderthals.

The Big Bang theory, everyone asks "well what was before then to make it explode?"

It's a hard question to answer, one we don't know the answer to, but to me, it's a hell of a lot more plausible than some holy being who creates stuff and we have no proof of him being more than a figment of imagination.

Let me explain the "Theory of evolution" in a way that you may find easier to understand. Please take time to read this before replying again:


The question is: What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’? This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore ‘chance’ will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!!

This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032) (gasp!). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ‘chance’ could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation. And this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form, and children of average intelligence could perform this same spelling task within a minute or so.

Thats just to spell the phrase "the theory of evolution". If you have done biology you will know how complex the smallest living cell is.  And you are going to tell me that not just one cell came into existence by chance but billions of them that know how to evolve and form the amazing organisms that we have today.  You have got to be kidding me!! The probablitly is physically impossible of it ever happening, and if you don't believe me, go and ask a mathmatician - even a non christian one.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032) (gasp!). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ‘chance’ could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation. And this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form, and children of average intelligence could perform this same spelling task within a minute or so.

That may be true, but if you were to add another computer, it would double the chance, and 5 computers would bring the time down to 5 billion years, 1000 computers would bring the time down to 25 million years, which is a very short time compared to the age of the Earth.
Earth contains billions of billions of lifeforms, which wolud increase the chance of evolution quite alot.

And if life came to Earth via a meteortite (i.e. seeded), the complex microbes would already exist.

[laurasaur]

Dude, thats not the probabiltiy of one cell coming into being, thats the probablitly of the SINGLE PHRASE "the theroy of evolution". Imagine that the chance of evolution is pretty much infinately more than that. P.S the earth is really only about 6thousand years old

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

have i ever told you guys?.....how great you all are :bounce: :rnr:  

i appreciate some people here are willing to "even out the teams" i tip my hat to you.

i think most of you here have already covered much of what i would have explained to the first post, but i really would like to quote on this if you dont mind:

jesus was a "black" jew so why do christians praise him? and also why the hell do we look up to god... doesn't that make him a dictator if we listen to him

The catholics made this "jesus was white" nonsence to begin with, in those judgemental victorian times they portrayed his as white because the racists would not want to praise a black person. Catholics have since changed.

We dont care what color he is. Whatever coincidences he did to be praised as a healer, doesnt change much because it. was what on his intentions that mattered. He said he was the son of god in his own words and followeres recorded this. Noone spoke for him, noone helped him preach, noone gave him ideas. He knew who he was and did whats necasary. If thats not true and he was a regular guy then why hasnt the calandar changed to 0 ABY (after BY) when i was born too

if you believe in god do you believe in the devil... you can't have one without the other so why not believe in both...

do you? Anyway as real as god may be, the devil is more an figure of speech in my opinion. I think the real devil has long been rotting in hell, the devil we speak of now represents ourselves, our own hate, our own greed, our own foolishness. We know we are not perfect, we dont travel on easy ground, we either climb or fall. And resisting the "devil" is our way of resisting personal downfall. Why the hell would you worship satan anyway? he hates the bloody lot of us.

and if adam was created by adams rib she is therefore a "clone" and a blood relation and wouldn't that be counted as incest?

incest was non existant in those times. Adam and Eve had perfect bodies so that must mean perfect genotypes, interbreeding caused little dissaray as the resulting offspring did not carry enough variation in their genotype to produce unfavorable phenotypes. And no i dont beleive adam & eve were white.

and also i know females like to believe sometimes that god is female but the bible states god created man in his image and then created woman... that signifies that god is male

Feminists who say god is a chick just want to feel perfect. And god is neither male or female, "created in his own image" means we were created in the likely form of god himself, that includes women.

why do we celebrate xmas on the 25th of decmber when it's been proven he was more likely born in july?

more "likely" but not definetly. People wernt absolutely sure what month he was born when Xmas was invented. It was an assumption most likely but people need time to buy xmas presents so its not going to change.

and the bible was written 700 years after jesus was "born" so how can we trust it is acturate/not a work of fiction?

the letters written by prophets were made exactly when jesus was around, they werent wise words passed down generations. the scrolls were kept secure and safe for the future. Besides wasnt the first bible simply the OLDEST bible ever found? theres a difference between oldest and first

a quote i like from the island

"who's this god"
"you know when you pray... god is the one who ignores you"

you watch too much TV (assuming thats what the island is)

thanks to endmax for providing the quotes, you are but one of many examples of how people are presuming too much from religeon, not taking it seriously, abusing its purpose etc

[endmaxd]

i did not abuse religion... life is all about making choices... and if i had to i'd rather be a buddhist than a christian i like their beliefs alot better... i still don't believe someone has control over us... even to a certain extent... do you believe in fate? i don't i would like to find my own purpose in life not what someone has decided for me

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

suit yourself dude.

but for the record you sounded like you were testing what i beleive in, even if that wasnt your intention, i just had to react to it.

[Netherai]

This is going to ramble a bit so I'm sorry but it bundles together a whole load of little thoughts I've had whizzing around in my head today (maybe that's why I have such a headache).

Re: that females like to feel better about themselves by relating to god as a female, I don't think that's fair, men seem to relate to God as male, does this make them feel more powerful? Isn't technically God an It, lacking in gender because of its perfection?

Re: God as having existed "forever", if God created time, then technically there is no "before" since time must have had a beginning. If this is the case then doesn't that mean that God and the universe are one and the same? That God created the universe just as the universe created God? If God did _not_ create time, doesn't that mean that something else did, either that or it just "occured", if it just occured, doesn't that mean that it happened before God? If we bring in the concept that God exists outside this universe, doesn't that mean that God is enclosed in something else? A bubble around the bubble we're in? What created that?

Is God intelligent, does God have a conciousness? Is God self-aware? If this is the case then either God became self aware at some stage (sorry, I have to use the word time or at least the idea of time), and thus was not self aware before that. If that's the case then doesn't that mean that God has been not aware of itself forever (since the time between God becoming self aware and now can be counted)? If God has always been self aware then what did God do for that eternity before Creation (and don't take eternity lightly... it's forever, it's just a shorter forever than that forever, plus the forever from now until the other end of forever )

Which God is the "real" God? Christian? Islam? Judaic (sure that's the wrong word, sorry to all the Jews out there )? They all appear to be the same God, but they all argue about which God is which. Let's not also get started on Buddhist, Hindu and Shinto theology either :tongue:  Is there a "real" God and do we really know it?

I hope this doesn't make too many people's heads explode, mine still hurts, I'm sure I have more thoughts like this in there, but I'm afraid to type them out...

Netherai.

[Darkov]

Well, I'll put it like this:

What is more logically plausible?

1. Natural evolution? i.e. the slow evolution from primitive lifeforms to more complex lifeforms.

e.g. Humans have a definate connection with primitive man. That alone is clear, but physically we have changed and adapted slowly to our lifestyles. Our brains have enlarged and our teeth arn't freakishly large. We have mastered many things, from fire to tactical nuclear weapons. Animals evolve to suit their surroundings. It's a slow procession. Kiwis for example lack defensive capabilities against predators because for thousands of years, they had none and therefore no reason to adapt.

2. Creation via a deity i.e. An all-knowing being who has the power of creation

e.g. Humans are all genetically descended from two people, Adam and Eve. Not only does this spring to mind various genetic diseases (e.g. haemophilia -bleeding disease) but the question of if there really was a divine being, then something must of created it. Also, the bible mentions nothing about god creating dinosaurs, presumably because the writers did not know of these creatures. I suppose god came to them one day and said "Hey guys, I've done all this, write it down but I won't tell you everything"

In the end, like any mystery you go on evidence. So far, there is a lot more evidence stacked in favour of evolution than divine creation. Religion is as old as the hills and many christians in ancient times hunted pagans who worshipped tree gods and the like. There is no evidence whatsoever that christianity/a divine being of any religion is any more plausible than Bob the Couch God aside from written text which the stories within have never been proven true.

We must either go on something that has been observed or something that resides purely in our heads.

The earth six thousand years old!? :chuckle:

Edit: Okay, apparently carbon dating can not be used for millions of years, but I found this

The oldest known structured fossils are most likely stromatolites. Believed to be formed by the entrapment of minerals by mucous-like sheets of cyanobacteria, the oldest of these formations dates from 3.5 billion years ago. Fossilized deposits of heavy carbon (acritarchs) that are also indicative of earlier life (3.8 billion years ago) are currently proposed as the remains of the earliest life on Earth.

During the course of evolution, new forms of life developed and many other forms, such as the dinosaurs, became extinct. Prehistoric life evolved over this vast timespan from simple bacteria-like cells in the oceans to algae and protozoans and complex multicellular forms such as worms, molluscs, crustaceans, fishes, insects, land plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. On a scientifically proven geological timescale humans evolved relatively recently, about 4 million years ago, although the exact dating is a matter of some debate. A few forms of prehistoric life like some plants and notable animals such as the coelacanth are ancient life forms and still exist today, making them living fossils.

3.5 billion > 6 thousand years

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

that females like to feel better about themselves by relating to god as a female, I don't think that's fair, men seem to relate to God as male, does this make them feel more powerful? Isn't technically God an It, lacking in gender because of its perfection?

Calling God a "she" was triggered by feminists but im not implying it is specifically a feminist thing. I cannot speak on behalf of those feminists

i know for certain that if there are no female gods, then theres no point in god being male.  Why he is called "he" may be because noone originally called him she or it. It just stuck. I dont see any pride in it.

God as having existed "forever", if God created time, then technically there is no "before" since time must have had a beginning. If this is the case then doesn't that mean that God and the universe are one and the same? yes, what do you think god made the universe with? i beleive himself.

Your going beyond what we are capable of understanding. But i would say yes, god and the universe are one. Consider god IS time...knowing god, that makes sence. but when i say Infinite being it is only about as good as me saying what triggered the big bang. You will be thinking about that question for a long time.

Is God intelligent, does God have a conciousness? Is God self-aware? If this is the case then either God became self aware at some stage (sorry, I have to use the word time or at least the idea of time), and thus was not self aware before that. If that's the case then doesn't that mean that God has been not aware of itself forever (since the time between God becoming self aware and now can be counted)? If God has always been self aware then what did God do for that eternity before Creation (and don't take eternity lightly... it's forever, it's just a shorter forever than that forever, plus the forever from now until the other end of forever )

Your comparing his emotions to ours, do you think they are any the same? one can only emagine really. whatever feelings and conciousness we share is a form of proto-intellegence in comparison. Again this is also inunderstandable

Which God is the "real" God? Christian? Islam? Judaic (sure that's the wrong word, sorry to all the Jews out there )? They all appear to be the same God, but they all argue about which God is which. Let's not also get started on Buddhist, Hindu and Shinto theology either :tongue:  Is there a "real" God and do we really know it?

Its hard knowing what to beleive in and that is true, All came from one common ansestral ministry, but tradition is what split them apart. Being in different reigons means that people heard different stories also. I predict a future unity among them all anyway. So for now all these religeons made an agreement: "You go to heaven your way, and we go to heaven our way." The truth is, all Gods among among monodieteous religeons are quite the same. As for multidietous religeons such as buddhisms, go ask a monk.

e.g. Humans are all genetically descended from two people, Adam and Eve. Not only does this spring to mind various genetic diseases (e.g. haemophilia -bleeding disease) but the question of if there really was a divine being, then something must of created it.

erm..i thinnk you missed something i said earlier. Adam and Eve were made with perfect bodies and that the bible states, genetic diseases? what genetic deseases? they only could have come when the gene pool increased in variation and when mutagens became common enough

fun fact: Did you know a group of scientists cardon dated a live clam and it read to be 2000 years old?
Theres just a little thing about carbon.....nah, il let you sort that out yourself

[Darkov]

For your fossil dating purposes:

The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years.

Uranium-lead dating** is best performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, and is very chemically inert.

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.




** note: not carbon!

[Netherai]

Your going beyond what we are capable of understanding. But i would say yes, god and the universe are one. Consider god IS time...knowing god, that makes sence. but when i say Infinite being it is only about as good as me saying what triggered the big bang. You will be thinking about that question for a long time.

I was always happier believing bang-crunch-bang-crunch-bang Ba'hai have said something like "Before Adam, there were a thousand Adams", but now people tell me that the universe will never collapse inward and trigger a big crunch again... I'm still not sure I believe them

Your comparing his emotions to ours, do you think they are any the same? one can only emagine really. whatever feelings and conciousness we share is a form of proto-intellegence in comparison. Again this is also inunderstandable

I wasn't really talking about emotions, just whether God is aware of its own existence?

You wanted discussion I love discussion! Just wish my headache would go away

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

oh existence eh?

hmm, youl have to ask him. Perhaps the better question is if your aware of his.

[edit]
oh heres another thing i found out, This is cool because they estimated stalactites take about a thousand years to grow 1 millimeter this has been proven by tests taken after disecting stalactites and observing layers inside

beneath the statue of President Lincoln there are stalactites hanging off the foundation in the substructure measure to be from 30 centimemeters to 3 meters. It was built in 1862

I also have a kitchen pot thats over 4000 years old, it has a tiny stalagmites around the inner edge

[Verrt]

god could be self aware

but when you are an omnipotent, omnicognate, omnitemporal being
who's only physical form is the creation in which it resides
what is awareness anyway

if there is a god and it is self aware it's not self aware like we are


A human trying to fathom god is somewhat like a single celled oganism trying to fathom a human
it' dosn't even have the ability to fathom let alone come up with a theory about weather we know we exist

[Darkov]

I think perhaps, if there was one, we might know about it. If you follow the logic that it's so great we cannot understand that, then anything could fit that slot, any number of things.

As I've stated in my previous posts, the reasons given for things by religion are nowhere near logical compared with current evolutionary theories. No proof = sceptisim

bY, growth depends on the amount of water coming through. Regular rain is more usual than water seepage through thick layers of rock.

[laurasaur]

Oh my goodness, I have SO much to say. Unfortunately I have a programming assignment due tomorow that at this moment in time is yet unstarted. Maybe if I leave it it will evolve into the finished program? Oh no I forgot. That would take millions of years. LOL. P.S - in the mean time go do some research on carbon dating and the fact the 90% of the methods of carbon dating dont fit in with the "evolutionary theory". And if someone here believes that we evolved by chance, can you please post why you think that chance is ever possible? Thank you. I will be back tomorow or very late tonight to post my answers to the above 6(?) or so posts.

Love you all
Laura

[laurasaur]

theres proof for evolution! shit you mus tbe the first person to discover it. Can you please share with me this "proof"? Its widely acknowledged that there is no "hard evidence" of evolution or christianity, just theories and thesises.

[pukeko]

You don't have to look very far for proof that we came from monkeys... as unfortunate as that may seem.

[laurasaur]

yeah, just recently they dated a man to be around 3.5 million years old. turns out, he was just over a thousand. rofl, carbon dating Is FAR from accurate, especially when they choose to use the particular method that happens to be consitent with the evoloutionary theory that is 10% of the dating they choose to use. Stop distracting me from my assignment please

[Darkov]

Yes, you're right....There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between humans and primitve humanoid fossils found in Africa is there? None what so ever at all. Humanity cannot adapt at all to their environments, and physical features have not changed since the cave paintings of early man. Mammals have not changed since prehistoric times, nothing has, has it? [/sarcasm]

No proof? This is a lot, but you asked for evidence so here it is:

A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds — even those which do not fly — have wings. Today, the theory of evolution has been strongly confirmed by the science of DNA genetics. For example, every living thing makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. Because the selection of these traits is somewhat arbitrary, their universality strongly suggests common ancestry.

Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms reveals that phylogenetically close organisms have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas [4], and 6.6% from baboons[5]. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct mistakes in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce.

Not much is known about the earliest development of life. However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including cellular structure, and genetic code. Most scientists interpret this to mean all existing organisms share a common ancestor, which had already developed the most fundamental cellular processes, but there is no scientific consensus on the relationship of the three domains of life (Archea, Bacteria, Eukaryota) or the origin of life. Attempts to shed light on the earliest history of life generally focus on the behavior of macromolecules, particularly RNA, and the behavior of complex systems.

The emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis (around 3 billion years ago) and the subsequent emergence of an oxygen-rich, non-reducing atmosphere can be traced through the formation of banded iron deposits, and later red beds of iron oxides. This was a necessary prerequisite for the development of aerobic cellular respiration, believed to have emerged around 2 billion years ago. In the last billion years, simple multicellular plants and animals began to appear in the oceans.

Soon after the emergence of the first animals the Cambrian explosion (a period of unrivaled and remarkable, but brief, organismal diversity documented in the fossils found at the Burgess Shale) saw the creation of all the major body plans, or phyla, of modern animals; this event is now believed to have been triggered by the development of Hox genes. About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals, leading to the development of land ecosystems with which we are familiar.

Also, Carbon dating is useful for things that are younger than 50,000 years old. In my previous post, I refer to the group of Radiometric dating techniques which include Potassium-argon dating, uranium-thorium dating and a whole heap of others. It is not just limited to Carbon dating.

[laurasaur]

Has there ever, been one piece of evidence found to support the fact that we have *GAINED* dna? that our *EVOLVING* has been gaining information? No. Never. The only mutations that have been prooven are that of losing dna. Please link me to a study where they found we have gained information. There is not A SINGLE ONE in the entire world, because it has never happened. Oh hello? Thats the basis of evolution.  And while we're at it, where are all the remains of the things that we evolved into between everything, what you say, theres none of those either? Funny that...


By the way, before this gets heated, can I just explain to you all a bit of my background..
I have not been brought up a christian, infact I come from a staunchly aetheistic family, attended a well known public school and am attending a normal university. So yes, chances are I have recieved the same formal education you have. Aced physics and biology at school too. And I dont regularly attend church, the facts I use come from scientists (both non christians and christians so im not going off my rocker here). Also if anyone is going to post can they please read all the posts before themm...

[bloodyYOKEL-NZ]

careful guys: arguing again.

Darkov you know what you beleive in, that may be a good thing but your also beleiving what you have been told to beleive. No different no matter how logical.

Logic is baised in favor or the inventor. It changes constantly and i dont trust it.

too many wierd things happen to often for us to define what is normal and what is not.
The mysterious tall, naked woman who jumps onto street and terrorises motorists in Kenticky probably thinks we are wierd. So what is logic? Only what we belief it to be. Sounds like religeon.

Its true that as organisms change in variance they change in shape, but do they get simpler/sophisticated?

Birds lose their wings but the bone structure remains, they grow longer beaks but it remains a beak.

Do they grow extra arms because the environment changed and they HAD to? they may have tried but will power doest result in gene transcription. they would have died before their genome altered in order for their next generation to benifit. You see it takes millions of years to form new species and one lifetime for a bacterium is .00000000000000000000000000001 of year, long enough to clone, but long enough to alter? how did they pull it off i wonder?

Like the eskimos, they have been living in frozen landscapes for hundreds of generations and still havnt grown white fur, infact they retain much of their original russian characteristics.

I beleive evolution exists to an extent, from species to species i beleive that. but from stone to cytoplasm....and it occured because of nothing in particular. Seems illogical to me. By all means continue in your faith in evolution, im not trying to convert you. but i like to make people think

[Darkov]

To answer the question about evolution.

Attempts to shed light on the earliest history of life generally focus on the behavior of macromolecules, particularly RNA, and the behavior of complex systems.

For example, every living thing makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. Because the selection of these traits is somewhat arbitrary, their universality strongly suggests common ancestry.

For evolution, as long as you have an atmosphere that is composed of something other than noble gases, it is entirely feasible. Evolution occurs with mutating genes over periods of reproduction. e.g. one animal might develop a growth from a mutating gene to help it grab food or keep it afloat. If this was harmful to the species, the animal would die and therefore not reproduce/pass the gene on. If however, this was successful the animal would hopefully reproduce and carry on a line with the mutation that would spread out to eventually encompass the whole race. Cancer has been linked with this as it does not always strike up in people susceptible to it.

You can hardly comment that just because evolution doesn't happen now, doesn't mean it's a false assumption. Evolution occurs across thousands or millions of years, far longer than the theory has been about or the means to monitor the process have been around. Animals today are completely differant than they were several thousand years ago with exceptions to those that have lived isolated, encased lives i.e. kiwi.

The Moa died out because the Maori hunted them into extinction. The period may have been hundreds of years, far less time than required for evolutionary processes so they couldn't cope.

The emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis (around 3 billion years ago) and the subsequent emergence of an oxygen-rich, non-reducing atmosphere can be traced through the formation of banded iron deposits, and later red beds of iron oxides. This was a necessary prerequisite for the development of aerobic cellular respiration, believed to have emerged around 2 billion years ago. In the last billion years, simple multicellular plants and animals began to appear in the oceans.

There is not A SINGLE ONE in the entire world, because it has never happened. Oh hello? Thats the basis of evolution. And while we're at it, where are all the remains of the things that we evolved into between everything, what you say, theres none of those either? Funny that...

You keep missing the point, and please read my posts before firing back random answers.

Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms reveals that phylogenetically close organisms have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas [4], and 6.6% from baboons[5]. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct mistakes in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce.

Now, if these similarities arn't due to evolution, then what? There is remains of what we've evolved from and between the processes, prehistoric humanoid remains of differant stages (including various shaped skulls and body shapes, some races died out due to inability to change, those that could adapt did and are our ancestors) are scattered across Africa and some parts of Asia.

Evolution has proof, belittle or discount it if you wish, but there are genuine similarities and that's one heck of a lot more proof than religion which even today remains in the thought processes of humans and nothing more.

Even if evolution could be fully proved, it is unlikely we would be able to grasp the intricate workings of it, and the seemingly random mutations that can prove harmful or help us. Eskimos do not need to adapt, because they have mastered their environment. They do not grow full body fur because there is no need for it. Polar Bears/Eskimos are completely differant biologically.

Stone to cytoplasm is a generic comparison and impossible. It is unclear how bacteria/viruses really form and how they came to be on earth. No one knows for sure how they formed, whether they came from somewhere else or were formed by the extreme conditions earth was under in it's early life. Alone for billions of years, evolutionary process would've sped up as the Earth's conditions changed to support more life.

Perhaps a real example of evolution is the battle against Bacteria with Anti-biotics. Penicillin is nearly useless now because bacteria have "developed" and become resistant to it. Qualified docters worry that anti-biotics will become useless when "super-bugs" that are resistant to anti-biotics sweep the earth, if they ever do.

For all their simplilarity, bacteria show an incredible resolve to adapt to their conditions within relatively short times. Penicillin has only been around in the last 50-70 years (i think) so they could well of developed fast in the billions of years leading up to other growth

Cold viruses are another example. Their DNA is constantly mutating and as such we have found no common factor to base a cure on.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

fun fact: Did you know a group of scientists cardon dated a live clam and it read to be 2000 years old?
Theres just a little thing about carbon.....nah, il let you sort that out yourself

Only dead things cant be carbon dated, as the carbom 14 levels in living plants and animals stay constant, it's only when it's dead that the carbon 14 level can be measured.

yeah, just recently they dated a man to be around 3.5 million years old. turns out, he was just over a thousand. rofl, carbon dating Is FAR from accurate, especially when they choose to use the particular method that happens to be consitent with the evoloutionary theory that is 10% of the dating they choose to use. Stop distracting me from my assignment please

You should check your facts there, carbon dating only works up to 50,000 years.

You see it takes millions of years to form new species and one lifetime for a bacterium is .00000000000000000000000000001 of year, long enough to clone, but long enough to alter? how did they pull it off i wonder?

Most genetic mutations occur during the reproducing process, when a new genetic code is created, therefore an organism with a very short life span will have the fastest rate of evloution, as there are more chances for a mutation to occur.

[laurasaur]

..Humans are all genetically descended from two people, Adam and Eve. Not only does this spring to mind various genetic diseases (e.g. haemophilia -bleeding disease) but the question of if there really was a divine being, then something must of created it. Also, the bible mentions nothing about god creating dinosaurs, presumably because the writers did not know of these creatures. I suppose god came to them one day and said "Hey guys, I've done all this, write it down but I won't tell you everything"

Laws against incest exist today ~ However incest is a modern word describing a variety of things - some of which have always been sinful. The biblical laws against brother-sister marriages were first introduced for the isralites about 2000 years after adam (during the time of moses).

In the beggining, adam and eve had perfect genes and were created perfectly, after sin however genetic mutations began accumulating, hence why incest is dangerous

Re: that females like to feel better about themselves by relating to god as a female, I don't think that's fair, men seem to relate to God as male, does this make them feel more powerful? Isn't technically God an It, lacking in gender because of its perfection?

The Bible teaches definite roles for men and women and doesn’t make the sexes equal in all respects, though it makes them of equal value in God’s sight. The male is the responsible, or answerable partner in a marriage, and the female is the supporter, or helper. As much as some "new age" christians like to disagree with this, you can't argue with the bible and be christian in my mind.  If you want any more answers on male female God, I have plenty more just ask.

 Also, the bible mentions nothing about god creating dinosaurs, presumably because the writers did not know of these creatures. I suppose god came to them one day and said "Hey guys, I've done all this, write it down but I won't tell you everything"

Can I just ask you if you have actually read the bible? Judging by some of your posts I would guess No. The bible does mention dinosaurs, in many places. What you think just cos they dont use the word dinosaur it doesnt mean they are reffering to the same thing?  The actual word ‘dinosaur’ is not mentioned in Scripture because it was first coined in 1841, well after the King James Bible of the 1600s.

It is very possible that Job was describing a dinosaur in Job 40 when he wrote of the ‘chief’ of God’s Creation, with a tail like a cedar tree. Very possibly this was a Brachiosaurus. Also, dragons are mentioned in Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 43:20, and other verses.  Dinosaur-like creatures that lived in the sea were created on day five (Gen. 1:21—some translations call them ‘sea monsters’) and those that lived on land were created on day six (Gen. 1:24).

In the end, like any mystery you go on evidence. So far, there is a lot more evidence stacked in favour of evolution than divine creation. Religion is as old as the hills and many christians in ancient times hunted pagans who worshipped tree gods and the like. There is no evidence whatsoever that christianity/a divine being of any religion is any more plausible than Bob the Couch God aside from written text which the stories within have never been proven true.

We must either go on something that has been observed or something that resides purely in our heads.

You can choose to go on your evidence, and I will choose to go on mine, which makes alot more sense to me and when you think about it in a logical manner, makes perfect sense.  Hang on, has someone observed evolution?! Far, I must have missed that..

The scientific community and the media insist on labeling all genetic change as ‘evolution,’ without taking into account the nature/direction of the change.  The average citizen, bombarded in the media by talk of ‘observed evolution,’ can hardly be blamed for thinking that it is foolish to deny the idea of goo-to-you evolution—‘Why, look, they’re saying we can see it everywhere.’ But this is, as we have shown repeatedly, purely due to a dangerously careless equivocation on the meaning of the word ‘evolution.’ In fact, the changes we see not only have nothing to do with uphill evolution, they are readily and beautifully consistent with the notion of biblical creation. They reflect the overall winding down of information since Adam’s Fall and the resultant Curse on the world (Genesis 3:15–19, Romans 8:20–22)—which will ultimately be removed to usher in a new heavens and earth (Revelation 21:1).

Genetic Gene "Selection" Is VERY, VERY different to evolution. No-one can argue that genetic selection occurs, and more than anything its a proof of christianity and a disproof of evolution. There is not one case of Gaining genetic material, ever.  Just incase you were unaware, Gaining genetic information is the very BASIS of evoution. Let me just repeat that incase you missed it.

Gaining genetic information is the very basis of evolution.

Right, so there has never been any.


Wow, my post is too long.