You were probably educated on Darwin’s theory in your local public school or college. I would like to take this time to quickly review some basic principles of the theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory is a widely accepted theory that tells us that all life descends from a common ancestor. Creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time, due to natural selection. As random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s DNA, the beneficial mutations are preserved and passed on to the next generation. The inferior members of the species will die eventually while the ones that can adapt will survive and pass on their genetic information.
Well, that’s great, Darwin. But this theory was generated in the 1800’s with no knowledge of microbiology, where everyone thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. So why do so many people still believe in it? Well, in government we learn about the establishment clause. The United States cannot establish a national religion because we believe in the separation of church and state. Whatever is taught in public education facilities cannot be related to any specific religion. So what do we end up with? The schools brainwashing your children to believe that everyone believes in a ridiculous theory that suggests that we are related to cactuses.
The first big problem I have with this theory is that we have not found a SINGLE transitional species linking two organisms together. Darwin’s theory suggests that evolution takes time and many generations to form a new species. If that were true, you would expect many transitional animals linking two species together, wouldn’t you? For example, if dinosaurs really did evolve into birds, you would see fossils of creatures that are half dinosaurs and half birds. There hasn’t been a single example of a transitional species that would prove a transformation of even one different type of organism to another.
Back in 1999 when the picture of a fossil creature that resembled a bird and a dinosaur was published, National Geographic praised it as dead evidence supporting Darwinism as the FIRST transitional creature discovered. It was supposed to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. As it turns out, a Chinese farmer attached a dinosaur tail to a bird fossil. I quote Nancy Pearcey from the Access Research Network Journal regarding the fossil discovery, “Chinese farmers have grown adept at gluing fossils together in ways that increase their black market value, which is what happened in this case.” The missing link was forged by glue, not by evolution, says Jeff Hecht of New Scientist. National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism, says Storrs Olson from the Smithsonian Institute. What do we gather from all this? Do not believe all that you read in the papers. People will go to extreme measures just to prove a point they blindly believe in.
It is also impossible that life has come this far just by chance. Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum, quotes, “No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of evolution or natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it.” The set of genetic instructions (amino acids) for humans is roughly three billion letters long (3,000,000,000), and we have fewer chromosomes than chickens do. What evolved with us, and whatever killed them off, how come it didn’t kill us off?
To suppose that the first cell originated by chance is like believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airline parts and form a Boeing 747, says Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Astronomy and Mathematics at Oxford University. There is no possible way that evolution could explain the approximate 6 million species that thrive today. Some components of our cells could not have come to existence because back then; it wouldn’t have been advantageous for us in the first place.
Some scientists, who have come to the same conclusion, hesitating to mention God in their analysis reports, have claimed that the first cells were brought to Earth by Alien spaceships. Having been presented the choice of believing in God or E.T., I choose God.
Textbooks claim that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. We are taught about tectonic plates, and predicting time gaps by the use of fossils and ancient rocks. We are also educated on the techniques the scientists use to measure how old things are. The first method is carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating, presuming the rate of production of carbon-14 to be constant, the activity of a sample can be directly compared to the equilibrium activity of living matter and the age can theoretically be calculated. However, carbon 14 dating only works when the rate of decay of matter remains constant. Carbon 14 is thought to decay with a halflife of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute. I quote from Dr. Frederick Jueneman, “The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. There has been, in recent years, the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previous thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences and this could mean that the atomic clocks were reset during some global disaster, and that the events which brought Mesozoic Age to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather within the age and memory of man.”
Evidence was also presented at a 1994 conference implying that the tectonic plates that cover the Earth might once have moved thousands of times faster than they do today, which would mean that our Earth is actually very young, according to Newsweek. The Earth is actually a very young planet.
The reason that the Earth has to be 4.5 billion years in the first place is because the evolutionary theory wouldn’t work unless the planet was that old to begin with. Let’s say that the Earth was really 4.5 billion years old. It’s still not long enough for evolution to bring us to this point.
I end with this quote by Darwin himself. “To suppose that the eye with its ability to adjust its focus, emit different amounts of light, and correct for chromatic aberrations, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Evolution is correct only to a certain degree. Species adapt, but small mutations will not accumulate to create new species. Dogs make dogs, and cats make cats. Dogs do not make cats, tomatoes, cactuses, or fruits. Just like how apes do not make human, and how dinosaurs do not make birds.

there are proofs allready

O.O very long.

*yawn*

Show me proof of creationism and the existance of God.

anybody actually read thru the whole thing? i got tired when he started talking about brainwashing

I did.

good for you. u deserve a unlimited supply of 100 slaps in the face
enjoy

An unlimited supply eh? Great.

Yeah.. Too long

Darwin had to have the truth in some way. Look at the fossils of cave men and look at the bone structure now. They look pretty different. Maybe religious people don't want to call it evolution but it is. I don't think Creationists really hate Darwin, I think they just dislike the fact that "god" is not not getting any credit.

--------
Darwin had to have the truth in some way. Look at the fossils of cave men and look at the bone structure now. They look pretty different. Maybe religious people don't want to call it evolution but it is. I don't think Creationists really hate Darwin, I think they just dislike the fact that "god" is not not getting any credit.
--------

He had truth in SOME way. As in...mutations, adaptations, etc. However, these tiny alterations in their DNA cannot and will not accumulate to create whole new creatures. It's not that I or some religious people don't want to call it evolution...we still have no PROOF it was evolution. We have similar fossils of old ape-like creatures...however, it was never proven to be a "transitional" species linking us to whatever we came from originally. Not a single transitional species have been found...for those of you have haven't read my entire post...

Yes, dumb creationists with nothing to support them hate Darwin because they dislike how God isn't getting any credit. However, I'm pissed because his theory has so many loopholes, and because there are no other theories being generated that's not related to religion, the Government allows public education facilities to continue on teaching this crap.

Remember....mutations do occur, and species do adapt. But these small changes will not accumulate into a whole new species.

Also, in response to the person who asked for me to support creationism and God...I'll do that on another thread, if you'd like. But that will have to wait. This thread's specifically for evolution. If you'd all bother to read through my essay, most of your questions would be answered.

Might I also remind you all....for those who HAVEN'T read the post before automatically jumping to the conclusion that I'm some dumb creationist Christian fanatic...that Carbon-14 dating is HIGHLY inaccurate. With our technology now, it'd indicate that if I had been born in 1960...right now I'd be 2 million years old.

THE RATE of decay is NOT CONSTANT as people would have thought. Also, with the Ice Age and other such worldly disaster, the atomic clock MAY (may as in, a whole heck of a lot likely) have been reset. Which means...

Dinosaurs didn't die out 65 million years ago, but more close to human's memory. That also means our Earth isn't 4.5 billion years old. There's a second method in determining the age of our Earth...which I'll explain when I argue against Big Bang...but it's still very, very inaccurate. The loophole is big enough to steer Titanic straight through it...

And given that the Earth is at the oldest maybe several tens of millions of years...evolution wouldn't work. Even being given 4.5 billion years, assuming I'm wrong...evolution wouldn't work.

And while I'm still rambling on...

HUMANS are the most advanced species on this entire planet. We have less chromosomes than CHICKENS yet contain more than three billion amino acids. There is no way humans could have come to this point just through natural selection. Also consider the theory of evolution's "survival of the fittest." What evolved WITH us, and whatever killed them off, why didn't it kill us off? The differences between our species and whatever would have come this way with us wasn't that great that unless the entire species decided to slit their own throats, they wouldn't die out. So unless you want to believe there's an equally intelligent ape-like being...~shakes head~ No.

I find myself repeating what I've written in my first post...that's what you get for not reading through it all.

So what if we don't have proof, what are you going to do about it? No seriously. What?

Carbon-14 is only used for dating recent (less than like 50k years old) artifacts.


Most DNA is junk DNA, which basiclly does practically nothing. Also humans do not have the most advanced genes. I mean really we have pretty crappy senses of hearing and smell, we're physically weak for our size and we're pretty slow. Because of our weaknesses we are the only animals to have a need to (and have been able to) advance technologically to survive so we did. I mean really the only thing that makes us special is that fact that we are smart and had to use our brains to make things to survive.


Where'd you get that figure?


Uh have you seen some of the ape-like creatures that came before us? They look transitional.


What are you talking about? They didn't have atomic clocks back then.

[delete]

Never mind...

Thanol...I'll do this in order of what you posted.



Um...actually, no. They have used carbon-14 dating to attempt at measuring the age of the planet (the rocks at some region...I don't know specifics of where, just that it is used). Also, it's still inaccurate. The second way of measuring the age of the Earth is by calculating the age of the universe...which doesn't work. The speed at which the galaxies are moving apart from eachother CANNOT be calculated accurately, since recent discoveries suggested that even the speed of LIGHT wasn't constant long time ago. I have more stuff in my BIG BANG essay...so STOP MENTIONING IT HERE.



It's only called junk because we don't have any idea what it's used for. But scientists are trying to determine the likelihood of an individual to act in a certain behavior of certain parts of this junk DNA was altered. They're all connected, remember? Also, when I said "advanced," I meant look at our number of chromosomes relevant to how many "letters" we have. Also by "advanced" I mean we are able to have motive other than for survival. We have emotions.



It's a rough estimate, since no one can really tell how old the Earth is. And because both methods of attempting to record the age of the Earth doesn't work, it's impossibel to tell how off it is. 10's of millions is a better estimate than 4.5 billion. Also, tectonic plates were proven to have moved thousands of times faster earlier on in the Earth's life.



Yes, I have. They look similar...but they're not considered transitional in the scientific community. I mean, look at a wolf and a dog...both of a different species but in the same family. Their skulls look similar...however it doesn't mean one evolved from the other or what not. It's the same between us and apes. We're both mammals and have similar features.



What...are you serious? Do you know what an atomic clock is? I am NOT talking about the atomic clock people use to measure TIME. I know what that kind of atomic clock is. 9,192,631,770 Hz is the particular cesium resonance so that when its divided by this number the output is exactly one cycle per second. La la la la la and BOOM! Time is accurate...since time is the measurement of the movement of atoms. I'm talking about the atomic clock used to determine the age of a material...my God...must I respond to this? After consulting with my friend about how to reply to this without trying to crack a joke...haha....

I'm going crazy typing this...screw it, I'm posting up the rest of my report on Big Bang. Hold on one sec...

[quote]Creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time, due to natural selection. As random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s DNA, the beneficial mutations are preserved and passed on to the next generation.[/quote]

There is more to it than just natural selection and random genetic mutation. Not all changes occur by genetic mutation. In fact, mutation is rare. Most mutation occur in somatic cells and are lost when the individual dies. Only mutations that occur in cell lines that produce gametes can be passed along to offspring.

[quote] The inferior members of the species will die eventually while the ones that can adapt will survive and pass on their genetic information. [/quote]

Not necessarily true. The members with the greatest reproductive success will survive and the ones that do not will eventually perish. It is not always the one that is most adapted.

[quote]Well, that’s great, Darwin. But this theory was generated in the 1800’s with no knowledge of microbiology, where everyone thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. So why do so many people still believe in it?[/quote]

That actually proves that he paved the way of the future of modern biology. Ignorant and uneducated people thought that a cell was a blob of protoplasm. He indeed sparked a new revolution in the engrossment of this subject. Why do people believe in it? Because future skeptics and scientists have performed experiments indicating that Darwin is correct.

[quote]The schools brainwashing your children to believe that everyone believes in a ridiculous theory that suggests that we are related to cactuses. [/quote]

Brainwash? The schools are teaching the fundamentals of biology in a way that can be proved by science. Religion is purely abstract. You can not test or hypothesis the accuracy of it while you can with science courses.

[quote]The first big problem I have with this theory is that we have not found a SINGLE transitional species linking two organisms together.[/quote]

[quote]Darwin’s theory suggests that evolution takes time and many generations to form a new species. If that were true, you would expect many transitional animals linking two species together, wouldn’t you? [/quote]

I will answer both of these statements here. That is because the transition isn't black and white. It isn't like a black bird, then a grey bird, then a white bird. The changes are gradual over millions of years. I refer to the punctuated equilibrium model to shed a light. Traditional evolutionary trees that diagram the descent of species from ancestral forms sprout branches that diverge gradually, with species evolving continuously over long spans of time. It is not like we evolved on one single branch but on a multitude of branches. The punctuated equilibrium states that species diverge in spurts of relatively rapid change, instead of slow gradual change. This would mean that during the period of a species, there is a spike that causes a change in the species. If species A have been on Earth for 1 million years, then it evolved into species B in 5,000 years, there will be no intermediate species. You would see two difference species in a relatively short time thus not seeing the progress.

[quote]For example, if dinosaurs really did evolve into birds, you would see fossils of creatures that are half dinosaurs and half birds.[/quote]

Actually, many believe that dinosaurs did not become extinct but have evolved into present day birds. Look at birds. Look at their scaly feet and skin. There bone structure is much the same as the dinosaurs. Modern scientist want to do any with "Reptiles" and put everything into birds "Aves" because they are so much alike.


[quote]  There hasn’t been a single example of a transitional species that would prove a transformation of even one different type of organism to another. [/quote]

Yes there has. If you look at say something from the same Clade Lophotrochozoa, you see similiarities in the Phyla that is under it. From the body cavity to cephalization of the organisms. Another example, paleontologists digging in Egypt and Pakistan have identified extinct whales that had hind limbs. Fossilized leg gones of Basilosaurus is one of those ancient whales. These whales were already aquatic animals that no longer used their legs to support their weight. The leg bones of an even older fossilized whale named Ambulocetus are heftier. Ambulocetus may have split its time between living on land and in water.

[quote] a Chinese farmer attached a dinosaur tail to a bird fossil. [/quote]

So you are saying that because of one man's hoax you should do away with science? I'll fill this thread with Bible fallacies if I have to.

[quote]It is also impossible that life has come this far just by chance.[/quote]

Are you familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment? They basically simulated the primordal atmosphere of Earth hundreds of millions of years ago. They introduced the "atmosphere" which consisted of H20, H2, Ch4, and NH3. Sparks were discharged to mimic lightning. A flask of water represented the sea. Within a weeks time, early traces of amino acids were found. The building blocks of life. Think of the possibilities if the experiment was extended to millions of years.

[quote] Dogs make dogs, and cats make cats. Dogs do not make cats,[/quote]

How do you make a mule? A hybrid from a horse and a donkey.



Without science, our knowledge of the world would be based on nothing but faith and opinions. The world would still be flat today if not for the scientist that chose to challenge the dominanted opinion of their times and lay the foundation for thinking and enlightenment instead of blindly following the accepted doctrine like mindless sheeps and cattle.

cali99boy...your my hero

Hmmm...I'll refute in a min...while I process everything you wrote.

[quote]There is more to it than just natural selection and random genetic mutation. Not all changes occur by genetic mutation. In fact, mutation is rare. Most mutation occur in somatic cells and are lost when the individual dies. Only mutations that occur in cell lines that produce gametes can be passed along to offspring.[/quote]

I know that. It was a general introduction...however, the changes cannot accumulate to create new species.

[quote]Not necessarily true. The members with the greatest reproductive success will survive and the ones that do not will eventually perish. It is not always the one that is most adapted.[/quote]

Yes, that is another factor, and again, this is just a general introduction to natural selection, evolution, la la la...of course reproductive success is also a factor.

[quote]That actually proves that he paved the way of the future of modern biology. Ignorant and uneducated people thought that a cell was a blob of protoplasm. He indeed sparked a new revolution in the engrossment of this subject. Why do people believe in it? Because future skeptics and scientists have performed experiments indicating that Darwin is correct.[/quote]

No, actually, people believe in it because its what humans believe to be closest to the "truth" and the government doesn't allow any religion-related topics to be taught in school. His theory is the only theory about how life came to be...and I've only listed SOME faults. Also, you know the three laws of thermodynamics? They've never been refuted, nor have their corollaries. The first one being, no matter is created nor destroyed. The second one has many corollaries. Go read em sometime....but anyway, the 2nd law of thermodynamics completely blows away evolution.

[quote]Brainwash? The schools are teaching the fundamentals of biology in a way that can be proved by science. Religion is purely abstract. You can not test or hypothesis the accuracy of it while you can with science courses.[/quote]

Brainwash is a harsh word indeed, and maybe I didn't mean it that way. But how else can I put it? It's a crackpot theory. And let's not speak of religion in this thread. Because archaeological digs have proven many events in the bible to be freakishly historically accurate. Anyway, enough about religion. But it's true, you can't teach religion in a science course.

[quote]I will answer both of these statements here. That is because the transition isn't black and white. It isn't like a black bird, then a grey bird, then a white bird. The changes are gradual over millions of years. I refer to the punctuated equilibrium model to shed a light. Traditional evolutionary trees that diagram the descent of species from ancestral forms sprout branches that diverge gradually, with species evolving continuously over long spans of time. It is not like we evolved on one single branch but on a multitude of branches. The punctuated equilibrium states that species diverge in spurts of relatively rapid change, instead of slow gradual change. This would mean that during the period of a species, there is a spike that causes a change in the species. If species A have been on Earth for 1 million years, then it evolved into species B in 5,000 years, there will be no intermediate species. You would see two difference species in a relatively short time thus not seeing the progress.[/quote]

This is irrelevant. All we have are fossils that are supposedly ~blank~ many years old, and they're millions of years apart. No transitional species have been found. I know it's a gradual process...I know the changes are not that obvious at first. But you would EXPECT to find SOME species linking one to another, or from one to many others. You would notice the changes. E.g. bird/dinosaur. I'll explain this later on in this post.

[quote]Actually, many believe that dinosaurs did not become extinct but have evolved into present day birds. Look at birds. Look at their scaly feet and skin. There bone structure is much the same as the dinosaurs. Modern scientist want to do any with "Reptiles" and put everything into birds "Aves" because they are so much alike.[/quote]

Many believe, but many are ignorant. Again, with the transitional species...and crap, am I repeating myself? I already explained this in my essay, your response is irrelevant again.

[quote]Yes there has. If you look at say something from the same Clade Lophotrochozoa, you see similiarities in the Phyla that is under it. From the body cavity to cephalization of the organisms. Another example, paleontologists digging in Egypt and Pakistan have identified extinct whales that had hind limbs. Fossilized leg gones of Basilosaurus is one of those ancient whales. These whales were already aquatic animals that no longer used their legs to support their weight. The leg bones of an even older fossilized whale named Ambulocetus are heftier. Ambulocetus may have split its time between living on land and in water. [/quote]

AGAIN irrelevant. They call it whales because it had similar features. MANY animals share similar features. Hell, I have a thigh. A dog has a thigh. In the scientific community, there hasn't BEEN A SINGLE transitional species. Haven't you read my essay? National Geographic praised the halfbird/dinosaur to be the FIRST transitional, and THAT was proven to be a FAKE.

[quote]So you are saying that because of one man's hoax you should do away with science? I'll fill this thread with Bible fallacies if I have to.[/quote]

No, that is NOT what I said. This one man's hoax was the scientific community's last hope in defining a transitional species. And it was a FAKE. So there ARE no transitional species. And no, don't bother filling this thread with Bible fallacies. We shall continue THAT argument elsewhere if you wish.

[quote]Are you familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment? They basically simulated the primordal atmosphere of Earth hundreds of millions of years ago. They introduced the "atmosphere" which consisted of H20, H2, Ch4, and NH3. Sparks were discharged to mimic lightning. A flask of water represented the sea. Within a weeks time, early traces of amino acids were found. The building blocks of life. Think of the possibilities if the experiment was extended to millions of years.[/quote]

I am very familiar with that experiment. All they were able to produce were free-floating proteins and amino acids...nothing more. Given millions of years, it wouldn't do anything...the chances of all of it combining and producing ONE organism fit for the environment...is next to ZERO.

[quote]How do you make a mule? A hybrid from a horse and a donkey.
[/quote]

True, but then mules can't have sex with mules and create more mules, can they? No. It's a hybrid.

[quote]Without science, our knowledge of the world would be based on nothing but faith and opinions. The world would still be flat today if not for the scientist that chose to challenge the dominanted opinion of their times and lay the foundation for thinking and enlightenment instead of blindly following the accepted doctrine like mindless sheeps and cattle. [/quote]

THAT is true. The only thing I agree with you on. We KNOW that the Earth is round...it can be proven. Evolution...cannot. STILL A THEORY. Otherwise, it'd be called a LAW (big difference between the two). I have nothing to bash about this comment. I'm not supporting religion right now. What we need is proof that evolution works...after all, it's STILL a theory...with many many loopholes. Find a better theory to teach the class...because so far you haven't disproven anything I've written in that essay, but only brought up subjects we can argue about. It was my fault for not being clear enough.

Guys...you guys are telling me the same thing over and over and over again just using different words. And so I reply with the same thing over and over and over again...in different words. Come on, guys! I've worked hours on this research paper and this is what you give me? These are questions I've asked myself as well...I'm not a religious fanatic. Far from it.

I MADE EVERYONE HERE!!!!

we all have theories

My Religion is right yours is wrong!

this is what it sounds like.. Good Luck

So what, one isolated case, what about archaeopteryx? It was discovered decades ago.

So when are you going to tell us how some priest managed to pin point the exact age of the earth by researching the bible?

I'm unconvinced.

So you rather believe in the Bible story that the world was created in 6 days (1 day break), and that God created Adam and Eve?

So lame.

My don't you just love showing us underlings how intelligent you are. I must admit you have put forward many interesting points that I had not heard before but please in future, before you attempt another post learn the etiquette behind debating and discussions otherwise you'll still just sound like a little boy with an internet full of facts trying to prove how big he his.
Great post though.

Yes, I understand the laws of thermodynamics. I never said how I believed the world began, I stated how the world adapted since the beginning. I personally believe some higher life form created the first spark that causes everything else to come into place. Like the universe being a clock, that entity wound it up and released it and letting everything go on its own. Creation and evolution does not have to be mutually exclusive.





And religion is not?





The bible can be considered more on the lines of a history book pertaining to what happened it the years it was written. I could write my own little history book right now, does it mean my book was "holy" and "the word of God"? No. I could say, demons(airplanes) flew in the sky and crashed into man made mountains(skyscrapers) and killed thousands of people. It was the act of Satan.......This is referring to 911. I'm pretty sure thousands of years from now, you can still find evidence that this act occured, but does it mean it was supernatural? I can put anything into my little book and twist it around a little to make it seem divine and holy and no one will know any better.




Have you ever taken a course in evolutionary anthropology? You can see key similarities and differences that suggest 2 species were once very similar that diverged. Early forms of humans for example. You do not need a single transitional species to assume that we all came from a common ancestor. And if we all came from a common ancestor, then we must have evolved into what we are today. We have the vestigial tailbone that no longer have a purpose. It suggests that we once had tails. We evolved and the tail was dropped because it is no longer needed for survival. This is the same as our pinky finger, through the last few centuries the average length of the pinky has shortened. Not by much, but in a few hundred thoudsand years, I'd say it'll be gone like our tails. Is that not evolution?? Evolution is change over time. Just because we don't see it happening does not mean that it is not. People want to see the change happen now! But evolution isn't something that occurs in a 24 hour time frame. It takes millions of years to have a significant affect on a species for the species to diverge into a separate species.



The only reason why I brought the bible in this is because you stated that Darwin is a fruitcake and this "reaffirms your faith." You brought "faith" into this thread. If it is suppose to be a variable, it will get demolished.



Though the chances are highly unlikely, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, I believe something will happen. Proteins are the building blocks of life. Random freak accidents occur everyday, I'd say if enough "accidents" occur, we would get some form of simple life that can evolve in future "accidents"




The good thing about science is, its forever changing. What is correct today, might be proven false the next. But that is whats great about it. With every change, we go closer to the ultimate truth. Look at the progress of science in just these last 100 years... so many theories proven false, so many theories created. Science is what shapes the understanding of the world.

Faith have no scientific substance. It is believing without affirming or questioning it. That could be the very downfall of the individual who believes blindly. If you were to get shot, would you want a world's top surgeon to operate on you, or would you just pray to God and have faith that he will heal you. I would definitely take my chances with the surgeon.

Maybe GOD created the "Process of Evolution"?

Hmmm...I must apologize for my angry rambling last night. Having been in a bad mood, I did not mean to unleash my anger on those who have tried to refute my post. I admit, I did not show any etiquette. So for that, I apologize.

The whole point of this thread was NOT to support Christianity. I'm no Christian fanatic...if that's what it may appear to be.



No, I just think Evolution is just full of holes.



By researching the bible, I cannot tell you the exact age of the Earth. But I am convinced that it is a lot younger than 4.5 billion. Perhaps still in the millions.



The archaeopteryx is the dinosaur/bird I talk about in the essay. It was proven to be a hoax back in...hmm...before we hit the new millenium. A Chinese farmer attached a lizard tail to a bird fossil to increase its black market value. National Geographics was criticized like hell for praising it blindly as a transitional species.



The approximate time period in which the sections of the bible were written were proven to be the real thing. However...no more discussion on this topic. I'm not supporting any religion here. This thread was for evolution.



I guess I did put in the word faith. Originally, this was an article I used when I spoke at a local church...those who have argued blindly for evolution. But yes, I do believe it is an inappropriate title for this thread. I didn't mean to bring in faith.



Yes, but the odds of US being here at this point...what were the figures...I don't remember, but it was something around 1:10^70-something...I just don't faith to believe in chances...



Eh...my faith is different. Maybe I'm missing something...but through my research I am convinced that Evolution has...many flaws, and so does Big Bang, so where else am I to turn? There's a point in time where I just said...the universe is too big for our petty human minds to figure out...so there must be some outside force at work here.



Again, I apologize for my lack of etiquette. I really want this thread to continue without going into religion any longer. If I'm missing information, someone may post and I may refute, ask them to reiterate, or do further research on a topic so I stay better informed.

Here's something non-related...however, this was what pissed me off last night. Easy Method Driving School (for those of you in the MD area)...good advice: don't go there. Their customer service is HORRIBLE. They fail to schedule my in-cars when I register...they tell me they'll call me back and don't call for three days...they hang up on me four times, make me hold for 20 minutes...and tells me (back in June) that there are no openings until the end of July. Just yesterday, my first scheduled in-cars...the instructor doesn't show up. I call, and apparently he's in the hospital and no one's notified me. So I'm held off until August 28. I'm going...to sue.

I don't want to stray too far from the topic, but I believe we're talking about two different specimen here. Archaopteryx didn't just have a feathered tail, its forelimbs were more wing-liked and also had feathers. Infact impressions of the feathers have been imprinted into the various rocks that encase the fossil.

So what killed off the dinosaurs?

yes... to make all us non-believers discredit him even more... maybe he created the chimpanzee just to make all us heathens doubt his existence even further. now thats thinking

^ Maybe Evolution is a divine process that creates life.
The mechanisms are far more complex than we think at first glance.

We are talking about the same specimen. Its forelimbs were more wing-liked because it WAS a bird body with a lizard's tail. Of course it had feather impressions in the rocks...because it was a bird. -__-

HighOnMako : I'll admit that your figures and theories are really well written and you have proven yourself well. Also, I'm incapable with my knowledge of contradicting you, however putting "reaffirming your faith" as subtitle is going to give people a bad opinion of you and will make them uninterested in whatever it is you want to say, even if it's highly pertinent.

And calling Darwin a fruitcake also is too harsh.

I read certain extracts of your posts, did not understand all of it, since I have yet to learn about these theories. Anyway, try and not stress your opinion in such a hostile way. Just a suggestion.

no way, there was no evolution and there was no creationalism. there was aliens!!

2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

~Mister Bible

Dem aliens know how to create a human i tell u what son.

Sorry, we are not, you are most likely talking about Protoavis, discovered in the late 1990's. The fossil that I'm referring to was discovered in the 1860's and the feathered impressions ran along the entirety of its outline, yes, even the tail.

Its also happens that the Archaeopteryx fossil represents a transitional creature, one that Anti-evolutionists have tried to discredit the fossil by claiming that it is a hoax, eventhough half a dozen fossils have been recovered.

XD Actually I am talking about the Archaeopteryx fossil. I read it in multiple newspapers and magazines when they announced that it was a fake. o_O My first post (the essay part) had quotes and other info.

And yes, I apologize once again for being hostile. I blame it on my damn driving school...and you know what? I've been rescheduled AGAIN!!! AHHH!!!!!

Don't worry man... we're all kinda crazy sometimes.

Although you can prove flaws in one theory, it doesn't necessarily mean religion is right.

It's like Christianity vs. Judaism vs. Islamic religions. You can prove either one wrong and say the other is right.. but who's really right??

That's true. It was a mistake for me to put down "reaffirming your faith." I originally used this essay for speaking purposes...but anyway. How are you guys all doing? I think we got off on the wrong foot...so I want to start over.

I'm Justin. Peace.

People will believe what they want to believe.

Arg!!! Archaeopteryx is not a hoax!!! haha.

LINK

The Archaeopteryx fossil was not fake. Where are you getting your information from?

Also, there is plenty of evidence of other dinosaurs with bird-like features and vice versa, though Archaeopteryx happens to be the best.


Sure it has holes, that's why it's still a theory.

That is untrue, i remeber reading a book a while back on this topic as it was of intrest to me back at the time and i clearly remeber reading that a mule can have a foul but is *CONISDER A FREAK and AN ACCIDENT* of nature.



I have read almost all of your posts that you have placed in this thread and there issues that i can dispute but im really not into arguing with people on the internet.

Its surprising to me that you could write so much and say so much yet not realise this was wrong, im wondering whether or not you choose not to mention it or just didnt know

Oh and a reference to the quote above is here : http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/mule.html

Just look up the MULE TERMINOLOGY section.


BTW i do also believe in god very deeply actually but i cant accept things blindly, you can see on the news today what happens when people accept religon blindly with out trying to make certain conclusions on their own.

I believe this whole mumbo jumbo on the bible or evolution is just giving us all a head ache and bad for our blood pressure. Let's just not care and live for today instead.

ok Therapods (warm-blooded dinosaurs) evolved into the classes mammalia and ave (birds)

It is a total divergence

Humans=Mammalia
Chicken=Ave

chromosome numbers don't matter

Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and we (Homo sapiens sapiens) were around at the same time. Either we were racist and killed them off or our diseases drove them to extinction.

WE are COUSINS with them just in case you wanted to know and they have bigger brains

Actually it was actually rather useful. I watched a documentary on it. It was made from transitional species.

The legs were of a tree-dinosaur

No not really, i mean dont let things on the internet give you blood pressure, its always good to have discussions as you can learn things sometimes but when fact is fact and they still want to argue something that is actually true with out a reasonable doubt, such as a mule can have a foul, then its no point continuing any further cause well, its probably like talking to a wall.

But your right live for today, just make sure you dont take it as far as to have no tomorrow !! :genius:

Anyway im off to the beaaach now, beautiful weather here in sunny sydney !
water better not be cold

I'm slowly evolving to a monkey even as we speak. i'm getting shorter, my arms are elongating, and i'm oooh ooh ah ahh AHH noo it's beginning ooga booga blarg mama papa wah wah

Your grazy. Evolution has been proofed alot of times whereas god cant be proven.
God for me is universe, its not a being. it cant control us but its everything and still nothing.
1. Transition animal, well we have alot of evidences of wolfs turning to dogs.
What about all the fossil we found.
Weve found like thousands of these fossils. And why dont we have more fossils?
Well mayb cause bones after some 100 years will crumble and become nothing?
And the fossils that are preserved are either in preservedd in stones or in some really bone friendly enviroment.

2. We actually found a new kind of fly thats the newest evolutioned animal.
This fly was actually there b4 but now it has changed to have new abilities.

3. How come monkeys and human have close relation. Genetic and in acting.

4. We have also been able to mutate animals so they have new abilities. For example so did we give rats abnormalities and then mated them.
Guess what we got? Yes rat babies with the same problem.

5. Life didnt come in a second. Lets say there is a percent of 0.0000000001% of life would self create itself. Well thats about infinit rite? Well all the condition for life creating itself was infinite, first amino acids created. N, H, O, C and P can be easy combined to create easy complex chemicals. If u have these in pond and then dry the pond, the chemicals would start to make new molecules. Same thing with beginning of life.
Then it took many years for the peptides to create proteins. That later created other complex chemical subtances. This could have taken 1 million of years. Each step.
Yes life could have come from another planet, mayb from a bacteria from another planet that had the same life establishment.
The comet might have bounced on the surfaced and then brought the bacteria to our planet, earth.
And that guy saying about boeing, well b4 his time we only had one theory of life.
Now we have 4. Blacksmoker, comet, arc bacteria, and the one i said.
So that means this time its like a tornado creating a BMW.