Originally Posted by: PonyOneit occurs in nature every day when things reproduce and pass DNA onto other things. Or is this solely because of the hand of God's intervention? Because the way you describe it there, i.e. not being possible in nature OR in lab situations, would imply that it doesn't exist. [/QUOTE]

Im sorry but this is response is laughable. Total misconception. Youre comparing a parent to child inheritance as opposed to all the proteins in a DNA strand randomly getting in order in nature. We're talking about synthesis not inheritance. 2 totally different things. Something cant be generated from nothing.

Originally Posted by: PonyOne...which it has/does...[/QUOTE]

Nope, see response above.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneYes. And no one is denying this... science is in the pursuit of finding out how this occured and no one is denying this. Life must have come from one point at some point; this doesn't mean that it HAD to have been the way that your book describes it.[/QUOTE]

As the entire Evolutionary theory is based upon these things that theyre "moving forward with" or "investigating." So if they havent found the reason yet, why are they teaching it in schools???

Originally Posted by: PonyOneWe can clone living creatures; they have life when we follow all of the guidelines nature produces and use the material from two living sources. So... I guess God isn't necessary for reproduction? Or does he decide to put his hand into that, too?

Your point? Its taking DNA from an already living creature. Its not naturally synthesized DNA strands. Its not like theyre creating life from scratch.

[QUOTE=PonyOne]that doesn't make sense if you paid attention in 6th grade science class (I did fleetingly). Perhaps if you believe that all the world came into being in an instant there is a problem here but if you believe it was gradual (which there is more evidence for than against) then it doesn't seem so impossible. So evaporation would negate life? What about early life being anerobic and not using oxygen...? Early bacterial life produced oxygen, as opposed to needing it to survive which helped later organisms.

Another misconception. Oxidation is when oxygen is added to an organism and turns it into a simpler substance. Its got nothing at all to do with the anaerobic or aerobic organsims. If these organisms were not oxidized then there was therefore no ozone layer which leads to them being burnt up.


[QUOTE=PonyOne]not true. it would be nearly impossible to find fossils of microscopic creatures from billions of years ago. In addition to this, 70% of the earth's surface is water, and under that water I'm sure there are further fossils. Why are there no humans fossilized in the same fashion as a trilobyte?

And what came after those microscopic creatures? And then what? And then what? Even if you couldnt find the original ancestor, it should be set out clear as crystal in the Earth's strata that organisms went from simple to complex. And yet theyve found ZERO clear transitional lines. NONE.

Refer to my point about the precambrian strata where organisms of ALL 7 PHYLAS have been found and show no commonalities to the organisms in the strata below them. What happened there?

Genetics itself shoots the common ancestor theory to crap because it has been found that organsims with very similar functions have very different DNA structure and organisms with very different functions have very similar DNA structure. Things that should have come from the same DNA line have totally different DNA codes. What happened?


[QUOTE=PonyOne]see above. Darwin's theory is a couple hundred years old and in that time science has made leaps and bounds. Much like theories based off of the theory of relativity begetting things that were not envisioned by Einstein when he introduced it. Well seeing that evidently things have a penchant for "just being" and not going through any sort of growth, like the earth and its creatures, I guess that he must be wrong...