If people started disappearing

Who is Tennant?
-------
Where did molicules come from?
Molicules are made of atoms, and atoms inevitably constantly form molicules, unless they are exposed to extremely high energy.
The atoms which organic molicules consist of, as well as just about every atom that exists apart from hydrogen and helium, are thought to come from supernovae.
If you don't know what that is, it's what we call when a dying star creates a catastrophic explosion.

Stars, our sun among them, are giant nucliar fusion reactors.
They are mostly made of hydrogen, but at their cores, those hydrogen atoms are fused together and create helium.

But most of the heavier atoms require more energy than any active star can give to form.
And thus supernovae, which are just about the only things we know of in the universe that generates that kind of energy.
----
So now we know where everything heavier than a hydrogen atom comes from (everything in the universe are basically mutated hydrogen atoms).

So, where did hydrogen come from?
Well, hydrogen is only one electron orbitting one proton: It could hardly be simpler.
Just as the forse of gravity inevitably pulls mass together, there is a force, I guess, that pulls electrons and protons together as soon as things settle down a bit after the Big Bang.

Where did those electrons and protons and their like come from?
"The Big Bang", I'm sure, is not an answer you'll be satisfied with, but in detail I do not know.
That is not to say that it isn't known.

I'll look it up.


The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

Wow Kytescall, you take allot on faith yourself. Wow, it all sounds great, but where are the transitional fossils? And what amount of time do you suppose is necessary for a one-celled creature to develop a backbone and walk to best buy to get a computer?

For me, I wonder about the desolation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 by a perfect creator; the two specifc words used in that chapter: one for create and one for repair; the order necessary to produce life being correctly given; and what exactly happened to the dinasaurs and giants and was it when Satan was caste down and the earth destroyed?

I can buy adaptation and development but not life springing from a pool of organics during a random thunderstorm. No one knows, do they. I guess those who believe in God may be mildly disappointed; but those who refuse and find they're wrong are going to have the biggest "I could've had a V-8" experience in their life. It's worth looking into. . . and the questions never stop. The the design is amazing, for scientist and layman alike--and they are not mutually exclusive!

A blessing on all you posters.

Where are the 'transitional fossils'?
What do you mean by transitional?
Fossilization is not an easy process. The time and place must be right.
The estimate is that only one out of less than one thousand species gets to become a fossil.
Life is ever changing, and so every fossil is transitional.

What amount of time is necessary? How long it is actually necessary is not an easy question to answer, and not likely to be answered for some time.
How long did it take? That's easier: At least 3,800,000,000 years.


I don't like to sound rude, but the second paragraph onward I'm unable to understand.
But I get the drift that you can't accept "life springing from a pool of organics during a random thunderstorm".
'Springing' is not a word I think is appropreate to discribe the phenomenon.
Neither is the phrase 'during a thunderstorm'.
It wasn't something that happened over night. As I explained, it was a series of what might even be inevitable chemical reactions.
I just said above that it took 3,800,000,000 years, but multi-cellular life forms didn't exist for most of that time.


And as for the fact that "no one knows", no one knows everything.
That is not the same as "no one knows anything".


The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

[deleted]

You're kidding me...
How can you honestly believe in evolution? I'm a Christian, a new one at that, but all my life I know evolution is moronic. Fine, you say that we came into existence over the course of 3,800,000,000 years thanks to the 'Big Bang. Now, where is your proof? Where did the molecule or atom or piece of rock, WHATEVER you want to call it, come from? What created this tiny bit of matter? What created the universe that created this tiny bit of matter which supposedly created us?
Whether or not you can prove what you believe, I still remain bound to my Christian faith. Nothing can detur me from that.
So.
Where is it?
Where is your proof?
How can you prove God doesn't exist?
And finally, how will you feel when you have to stand before him, and be told...

Matthew 7:23
And I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you." Depart from me, you evildoers!

What's sad is I'm going to know who you are when this happens, and know that you'll be in hell, realizing that everything you thought was wrong in every way.

Firstly, who said I wanted to prove God didn't exist?
I see no reason to think he does, but that is diferent.

Secondly, how do we know of the Big Bang?
Because every galaxy we can see is moving away from eachother, and from us.
But at diferent rates.
We know this by studing the redshift (the Dopler-effect of light).
The farther those other galaxies are, the faster they move.
They are moving away from a single point in space.
So much is undisputed fact.
It is logical to suppose that they originated at that point.
The force required to blast all this matter into the universe must be colossal, and no known form of matter could survive it. So every known form of matter must have formed after this explosion.
There is also a multitude of random radiation throughout space, with no obvious origin.
There is no data that does not corrispond with this theory.

Thirdly, a molicule is not an atom, and neither of them is 'a piecs of rock'.

Fourthly, evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Traces of it are everywhere.
It has been observed (in small scale) in the natural world.
It has even been observed in labs.

Fifthly, "Whether or not you can prove what you believe, I still remain bound to my Christian faith. Nothing can detur me from that."
... You are saying that you are going to be closed-minded no matter what.
That is why you are not fit to discuss science.

Finally, "And finally, how will you feel when you have to stand before him, and be told...
Matthew 7:23
And I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you." Depart from me, you evildoers!"
... I will say: "Fine, I didn't know you, either."




The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

I go to college next year.
.... Do I know you from somewhere? Were those genuine questions?

The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

[deleted]

[deleted]

krissie, I'm sorry.
When you asked me how life began, I figured you were just another sarcastic creationist.
My apologies.

The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

[deleted]

Narrow Minded- "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. -Matthew 7:13-14

Why bother asking a question when you then say "Whether or not you can prove what you believe, I still remain bound to my Christian faith. Nothing can detur me from that" So why ask? Why bother posting at all? And it's been done hundreds of times but let me ask you this question and if you can answer it I will become a Christian becasue I'm not so arrogant to think that there is no possiblity that I could ever be wrong.
Who created God?
Extra credit questions that you can answer if you wish are:
What was he doing in the Millennia before creation?
Why is it less plausable that life sprang from universal laws, known chemical properties, millions of years of time, cause and effect and trial and error?
Than from a mythical creator who decided one day to start an expeiment involving humans and dust and ribs and serpents?
You say that you can't logically belive in life that sprang from "Nothing" yet you happily belive in a God who did just that.
It's not on the rational thinkers to dis-prove god, the onus is on you to prove him. Where is your proof for God?
The Big Bang is just scientist way of saying that they don't know what happened, sure we think that there was a bang, a big one at that but before that? What? No-one knows. But that dosen't mean that it was god! That's a logicaly false argument. Possibly we will never know how the universe started, why or by what mechanism, but that DOES NOT prove God. "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I surrender my interlect to superstition".


"I'm in favor of taking dangerous weapons out of the hands of idiots, lets start with computers."

[deleted]

But it's not that something is true as long as you believe in it. As I said before, if there is a truth that requires faith in order to be seen, then if we don't use that faith, even though the truth is right there, we will never see it. Not because something is true as long as you believe in it, but because there are just some things that require faith to be seen. Like I pointed out earlier, not everything is within the realm of human understanding.

But that doesn't mean it requires bothering with it if it is beyond the realm of understanding. There is no way around the circular logic that you are currently presenting to me, seeing that I can insert Zeus and "believe" it into truth all I want to. I am beginning to lose track in regards to your point, for what you are saying is that basically we can pick something and believe it, thus our faith will make it true. That is the foundation you have presented to me, but you cannot have it only apply to one belief or view. If you aren't wishing to do that, then exactly what are you hoping to prove? I mean, this is EXACTLY why I am against believing in an unprovable deity, as it is pouring blind belief into something because you want it to be there. There is no point in doing that, and I am perfectly OK with not possessing all of the answers to the universe, or even trying to attribute it to something akin to god.

* * * *


OK, so what's the speed of dark?

"for what you are saying is that basically we can pick something and believe it,"

-Exactly. That's the point of free will.

"thus our faith will make it true."

-No, what I'm saying is that just because we believe in something doesn't make it true, but just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't really exist, either. And sometimes, we need to use faith in order to experience the reality of it...

If god exists, women and/or reproduction was his greatest creation. In my view reproduction is the only thing to live for. If he comes for a visit I would personally thank him for creating the act of reproduction.

However there is no evidence to support the concept of a "god." Bring on the evidence boys. Quoting a book written by men over many generations and translated by men into many different languages is not proof or evidence. The face of Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich is more evidence than that. Of course if god is all powerful, why does he just come down and talk to us. He should kick Pat Robertson's fat ass off his chair and get busy explaining everything to us. In this day and age, how preposterous is the concept of a "burning bush?" Also what would you do if your god asks you to kill your first born son? I would hope you would check yourself into the nearest psychiatric ward.

[deleted]

I just had a glance through that site.

So, where shall I start?


“T-Rex was a vegitarian?”
Were you aware that it has been proven by the Creation Evidence Museum that T-Rex was NOT a meat eater? That's right! They proved it in TWO WAYS...
1 The roots of T-Rex were only 2 inches deep. Had he bit into the hide of another dinosaur he would have lost teeth
2 They cut a tooth in half og a unearthed T-Rex and found in deeply impureated with CHLOROPHIL! That's right, Chloriphil is the main substance found in PLANTS!

Right.
"CSF, as one of the major creationist organisations world-wide, wrote to Mr. Baugh two years ago asking for documentation regarding such astonishing claims as chlorophyll being found on a T. rex tooth, alleged tapes of Neil Armstrong, a NASA experiment showing that eggs do not hatch outs ide of a magnetic field, and a tomato plant that grew to 30 feet tall and produced 5,000 tomatoes when grown under light supposedly simulating pre-Flood conditions. The only reply we received had enclosed 'documentation' which was nothing of the sort." (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html)
Even fellow creationists, to quote from this same article, regard this as a "serious embarrassment".

And also, the 'weak teeth' thing:
"...The new evidence refutes an argument made by some scientists that Tyrannosaurus rex was primarily a scavenger because its teeth were too weak to attack live prey. 'Their teeth were as strong as those of the alligator, a predator that frequently has to deal with struggling prey,' Erickson says. 'From a comparative standpoint it appears that T-rex was equipped to struggle with its prey too.'
While this is not proof that T-rex was primarily a predator, he says, it does show that when confronted with prey the dinosaur could have held a death grip with its powerful teeth. 'We contend that if T-rex could consistently engage prey with its teeth, it could have exploited a predatory niche,' Erickson says.
(http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1996/A/199600502.html)
This article has nothing to do with creationism, but I find it of some relevance.

But anyway, what do these people think these dinosaurs ate? What kind of plants?
As Lewis Black said: "Those sharp claws and teeth are just perfect for chasing down and catching smaller plants that tried to get away!"
... I've seen a creationist who claimed that they had sharp teeth because they 'ate trees'. Now that's where you need to take the loose tooth argument.

“Human brain proves Evolution a lie.”
Ok.. let me get this straight. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand... Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change.

Question... How is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over 3 millions years, when all we can live up to is 90 years? (Don't expect and answer from them.)"

Simple. It worked. If you don't have what it takes (what the changes in environment call for), then too bad, but if you happen to have more than what is strictly necessary, then there is no reason to abandon it.
You can't have too much inteligence. Every bit helps. What's so bizzare abut that?
What I find bizzare is "Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger". Wow. It must have been pretty tough to get a date.

I did a quich search but I haven't found anything about a human brain 3 million year memory capacity.
But I found an article (there were of course many) on humn brain evolution. It doesn't adress any creationist claim as far as I've read, but it wouldn't hurt to post this: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030050

“Fossil Record.”
Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

The 'transitional fossil' thing.... Don't these guys get it? Everything is transitional. Or depending how you look at it, nothing is.
Nothing is static. Every animal in the fossil record or existing today was something else, and unless they die off, will be something else. Everything is simply what it is, and what it is is not stationary.
In terms of evolution, 'transitional' is an empty and meaningless term.

And concerning these so-called "polystrate fossils": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html

“Decay of Earth’s magnetic field”
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

This argument is simply based on false assumptions, and the conclusions darwn are merely jumped to: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm

“The Global Flood”
The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers.. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.

About these "hundreds of flood traditions"... I would like to see accounts of these. How similar are they? Significantly so? Surely floods occur all the time, in more than one part of the world. But even so, I definitely doubt they're really talking in the hundreds here.

But anyway, this is simply ridiculous.
What caused this flood? If 'God' is your answer, you might as well start believeing in the Tooth Fairy again, because 'God' is not a process. It's not an explanation. Magic is not eligible for scientific debate.
And where did all this water come from? From space?
If all the land was submerged, which I believe is the general biblical creationist belief, and this was done in approximately 40x24 hours, which I believe is another biblical creationist belief, the amount of water, and the force of all this water must have been on a scale which is, frankly, out of the question. Remember, a wooden ark had to survive all this. Not very likely.
And as I said, if you believe all the land was submerged, and also typically deny plate techtonics, you would have to believe that, logically, the top of Mt. Everest, which is almost 9,000 meters above sea level, was also submerged. Where did it all come from, and where did it all go?

“Radio Halos”
Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.


http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

“Human artifacts throughout the Geologic Column”
Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

Unfortunately, no.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

“Helium content in the earth’s atmosphere”
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

"The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 ±1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magneticfield intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss.
(Dalrymple, 1984, p.112)"
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/helium.html)

“Expansion of space fabric”
Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. 13The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

“Design in living systems”
A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

This'll be the "irreducible complexity" argument, wouldn't it?
For someone who claims that this defies evolutionary explanations, the author seems to have a poor understanding of evolution.
Here's the key word: "Chance". That's one of the many sources of misunderstanding.
You see, evolution being what it is, spontanious development has nothing to do with it, as this word, and no doubt that statistic, suggests.
It's all about causality. No one is comparing this to the tossing of a few million coins. That's because, the outcome of the next toss is not effected by the last.
Sure, there's some 'chance' involved, but that's just to start things up. For example, let's say that there is an object called A, that has a 50/50 chance of becoming either B or C. The analogy of the coin suggests that whichever way it goes, the next is always an option. In that case, things will never get anywhere, and evolution will naturally not exist. But that is not the case. Once A becomes B, C is no longer possible. Only new options, shall we say D and E, are open.
So, evolution has less to do with randomness than many believe. For every action there is a consequence. Causality.

“Design in the human brain”
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so.

This is the same argument as the one above (only more specified), and a repeat of an earlier one.
The only new thing here is the last part about human conciousness and thought processes.
This in itself is a non-sequitor. Our brains function in a certain way. So what?
You know, this reminds me of a guy whose main argument against evolution and in defense of God was that the sky was blue. It doesn't follow.

-----------
willamrcowher
"Microevolution and macroevolution are 2 different things. It is impossible to believe in macroevolution and also be a Christian. They are not compatible."

death734___
"there are six kinds of evolution

Cosmic - time, space, and matter from the big bang
Chemical - the origin of more complex elements
Stellar Planetary - origin stars and planets form dust clouds
Organic - life from non-living things
Macro - one kind animal changes into another
the first 5 are stupid, they dont happen. thier is no science to proove it does

Micro - the variations that occur within the kinds such as dogs and wolves having a common ancestor.
now this one does happen. things vary. like dogs, some might be big some might be small. but its ALWAYS a dog"

No, sorry, there is only one kind of evolution, strictly speaking.
Evolution means that over time, things change. You might apply this to various fields, and claim 'different kinds' if you insist, but in biological evolution there is only one kind. It is only a matter of scale.

This "variation within a species" argument is bogus.
The problem is the word "species". Who defined that term? We did. It's a term used in the catagorization of life forms by us. It's a word.
In reality, there is no definite boundry. We all share DNA, and many share similar body structures with eachother. When you get right down to it, everything is a variation. It's just a matter of degree.
And no, no one ever claimed that anything other than a dog will be born of a dog. That's because the process is very gradual. You'll never see the changes within a life time, unless it's a dramatic mutation, which is not likely to happen to more than a small number of individuals, which'll probably be our fault anyway.
There is no line which, if crossed, the animal in question will magically turn into something else. It's a more or less continuous process; if you live long enough and observe these dogs for a few million years, you won't see the change. There is no instant in which a dog ceases to be so and turns into sonething else. On the other hand, if your friend had decided to leave for that time and returned later, he will probably not find any dogs, because he simply won't recognize them.

death734___
"if you actualy think life evolved from sludge and rocks and other non living things then thats just *beep* up."

I don't think anyone said anything about sludge, and definitely not rocks. Life didn't evolve from rocks, although there are firm grounds to think that life, having definitely evolved, didn't begin as a living thing.
But I'll tell you what's *beep* up, if anything is; Chrisitan mythology dictates that we are made of dirt. That's not the problem, unflattering as it is. It's how stuff are put together that is important. The problem is the how. Creationists say we are designed. If anything is demoralising, this is. If you care to look at everything else that is designed, you will notice that everything that is made is made for a purpose. A specific purpose. Everything we make, we make for us. To serve our purposes. You see, the purposes for which they are made are not theirs, but ours. Even forms of art are tools to effect our emotion, provoce our thoughts, or give us entertainment.
The bottom of the line is, everything that is created has no identity of its own. Its value can only be measured though its user. Even your precious Bible, if every single person capable of reading it vanished, it would instantly become utterly worthless. The philosophical implications of creationism is that we are only trinkets, and the point of our existance doesn't belong to us.

On the other hand, modern science states that life began as single molecules which continuously developped better ways to keep making copies of itself (if they didn't, they would simply have ceased to exist by now, and many of them of course have). The purpose of life, as far as this goes, is merely to be. Anything beyond that is up to us. Everything in nature, every life form, every rock, every single particle, is not here to suit some ultimate goal. Everything is what it is, and it is so only in its own right.
That's optimism. That's respect for nature. Philosophy of the free, as I like to see it.

"the sun gets a 5 feet smaller every hour. so obviously it use to be bigger. 20 million years ago it would of been touching earth"

List a sourse that this is happening.
And don't fail to give evidence to show that, if this is happening, it has been continually happening.

The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

[deleted]

"Shrinking sun"....
False. The sun is not shrinking. There is a loss in mass, but it is minor.
In this argument made by Hovind, he doesn't understand the relationship between mass and diamiter, among other things. 5 billion years ago (the sun is actually 4.5 billion years old), the sun's mass would have only been 1.00037 times greater than now.
And no, no one said anything about 20 billion years. That's the age of the universe, not our sun.
(http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/solar_mass.html)

By the way, you failed to provide a sourse. A sourse has to be specific, not a broad look-for-it-yourself.
Although, the link above was something I found in your search results.

"Slowing down earth"....
- "The creationists mistook the discrepancy between the second defined as one 86,400th of a day and the second as the physics people define it for the rate of which the Earth’s rotation is slowing down."
- "The Earth is really slowing down at about 1.5 milliseconds a day per century—not 1.5 milliseconds a day per day as the young-earth creationist state."
(http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie005.html)

"The Big Bang & Conservation of Angular Momentum"....
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html
"Satan's Big Bang"..... Hilarious...

"and yes evolution says that life came from slimey crap in the water that evolved.
and that dogs came from rocks
and other stuff came from other non living things"
Every single creationist claim ultimately boiles down to this; ignorance.
'Dogs came from rocks'? Who ever said that?
And 'other stuff' came from 'other' non-living things?

One of the basic facts in natural history is that all creatures on this planet share common ancestors. They didn't all pop in to life indipendantly from all sorts of random and by the way inorganic stuff like rocks.
And what have you against 'slimy crap'? This is basically the same 'slimy crap' that inhabits the core of every single living cell in your body.
And in the interest of accuracy, 'slimy crap' is downright inaccurate. Life eveolved from indipendant molecules, not some slimy lump.
But remember, while we're talking of non-living origins, I think a self-replicating molecule is more flattering than dirt, which is what the Bible says.

The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

[deleted]

Speaking of observed evolution, bacteria is not the only organism.
In flies, at least, this has been observed. A species of fly split into two groups and set into two different environments developed different characteristics. While thay didn't change nearly enough to be catagorized as seperate species, this was, after all, only a matter of 30 or so fly generations, and very well within a human lifetime; a mere split second in the geological time scale. Taken up to a larger scale, it is impossible to deny the potential of this process.

The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

[deleted]

[deleted]

And I add that 'faith' and philosophy should always be based on fact, not vice versa.
Denying facts because they don't harmonize with your religion is just wrong and immature.
The universe is not built to suit your beliefs. You should accept that.


The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Hammerd is correct. Just because a certain man, known to be incompitant in the ways of science, is too arrogant to accept facts is no reason you should draw conclusions that his fantasies are true.


"...about 4400 years ago, thier was the great flood when the waters emerged from the crust, and the canopy of water in the sky (which allowed for 900 year old people and lizards to live long enough to grow to dinosour size, cause it gave double beremetric pressure and block bad sun rays)
and that flood put extreme pressure on stuff and formed things"

Do you realize how rediculous this is?
Firstly, the pressure this water vapor canopy would produce would be rediculously immense. Noa and everybody before him would have to have been suffering from nitrogen narcosis, and the atmosphere, which is now 15 pounds per square inch, would have been 970 pounds per square inch. Also, the temprature in the base of the canopy would have had to have been 500ºF at least, in order to maintain the H2O as vapor. Now, knowing no one who could probably survive that kind of pressure or heat, obviously there has been some simply awsome evolution going on since Noa's time. But that's not all. If this much vapor all turned into water in time for the flood, it would release enough heat to raise the temprature of the atmosphere to 6000 degrees. Tell me again, what was the ask made of?
And there is no mechanism that can raise a relevant quantaty of water from the earth's crust. It is very hard to believe that such a geology is possible to begin with, becasue it would simply be intensely unstable. But even ignoring that and somehow successfully arranging such a structure, as soon as a little bit of water is released, the pressure would drop, and the whole thing would collapse. Sea levels would not rise much, because the rocks and the water would merely be switching places.
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/additional_topics/flood.html)

The Kytes call, as rainwater flows to the sea.

'fact that the bible is scientificly and historicly correct '

This statement is a complete and total lie, and you have to make a conscious decsion to be dumb enough to believe it. Why not post a website that isn't immediately based on the ridiculous notion that the bible is fact? Real science doesn't start with the conclusion, but rather in observation. Real science does not care what the conclusion is, as it's only interested in truth. The sites you post are agenda driven.

There is one fact. The bible is not historically accurate. There are mounds of physical, historical and archeological evidence to prove this, while there is NO EVIDENCE, NONE to back up the supernatural claims of the bible.

I don't say this to change your mind. It's obvious that can never happen. You, unfortunately, are too ingrained with the dogma of your religion to understand reality vs. fantasy, and you'll never be equipped to seperate truth from fact. But, at least you should know that some of us have moved beyond that, and we are capable of understanding what is real, and what is made up. And quite honestly, when you say things like 'the bible is scientifically and historically correct', intelligent people laugh at you.

Rant on. (God...if you are listening...rapture these ignorant jerks up now so the rest of us can get on with our lives)

Wow, KytesCall and the other EVO guys, you've tried to explain science to people with their head so far in the sand that they refuse to see the logic in what you say. Of course since faith is their guiding principle and faith is inherently without logic, we can't really hold that against tham. In any case you've had to endure so very unchrisitan heckling and belittling as you explain what should be taught in every highschool science class, while having legnthy diatribes about scripture forced down your throat. You have some divine patientce.

I on the other hand, don't.

Look Evolution is not Fact, as nothing in science is fact. It his however a THEORY, not a principle or an observation or hypothesis, but a theory, which in the scientific use of the word means it is the most coroborated of all the things i previously listed. Gravity is just a theory.

With that said, open your eyes and see all the wonderful wonderful things science has done for you. It was people like you who killed Galileo for pointing out the truth that the earth isn't the center of the freakin universe.

It was people like you who persecuted doctors in the middle ages for attempting to heal through other things besdies faith.

And it is people like who who have cast a doubt on science in this country, and as a result we are losing ground to China, India, and the rest of the g-d damned world

Teaching creationism in science class is absurd, there is no scientific evidence to back it up, therefore its not science. All you have is some book thats a thousand odd years old that says this is the way it happened. Who wrote the book, well according to you thats not a valid question because in fact God wrote it. Could it be that your religion, just like every other religion is derived from an acient series of beliefs that eventually grew and snowballed into what you know as Judaismm and Christianity? No? Not even a possibility?

Look here. explaining evolution to all you fundementalist, right wing, anti-intellectual, evangelical christians is a lost cause. You have not DESIRE to look at the world scientifically or logically. You see EVERYTHING as a matter of faith.

To the person who brought up the person dying of Cancer and how she was "miraculously saved." Spontaneous recession sometimes happens, and you can consider it a miracle, however I'd bet my house, that more peoples lives are extended or saved from scientific methods like Chemotherepy.

Faith is a wonderful thing, it gets us through life, keeping us emotionally and spiritually in check. It can guide or morals and ethics (which is why i Consciously ommitted the stem cell thing...the argument that it is life is an ethical debate which has actual merit. I personally think that fetuses aren't alive but that is up to reasonable debate), and is therefore a valuble tool.

However Faith and Science are at odds with one another despite what anyone says. Science requires you to ask questions to find answers. Faith says the answers are right there and asking questions is an affront to Faith. These are irreconcilable differences. So while you can be a religious scientist you can't allow your religion to get in the way of your science.

I'm sure the Evo guys have read this, and the fundie whack jobs have merely skipped aheade lest their mind get filled with unholy questions, however When Kytescall and people like him/her find a cure for cancer, or aids, or any of the number of diseases god has decided we can deal with, I'll be happy that they were able to see past the nonsense being taught in our schools, because of people like you (YOU being fundy whack jobs), and were able to use SCIENCE to benefit humanity.

Rant off.

Oh and yes if people started randomly disappearing out of their clothes I'd think twice about what I just said. Because then there would be some evidence that all the stuff in the Bible (not the philosophy...thats all good, i'm talking about prophecy) is more than some really old middle easterners acid trip.