does anybody care?

Originally Posted by: PonyOnethat it's a fable?

As I said, lemme know when you find out how we got here.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneonly if you do the same, okay?

I already got my theory, which if the events of the Bible played out, makes sense. Evolution however, does not. I think Ive showed that in this thread.

Originally Posted by: stackny-DNA has never occured in nature and hasnt even been made in a lab under controlled conditions.

-Even if DNA could have occured in nature it would still need a living cell to carry out its function and replicate.

-Amino Acids have never been found to occur in nature and only have been made in a lab under intensely controlled conditions.

-If organisms could arise from the primordial soup, then there couldnt have been oxygen in the atmosphere or else they wouldve been oxidized into simpler substances. This creates a bigger problem than it destroys because without oxygen, there is no ozone and they woudve been exposed directly to ultraviolet rays, burning them to a crisp.

-There is a severe lack of fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils should be everywhere.

-Heres a quote from the father of the evolutionary theory himself on transitionals.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”. {Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, First Collier Books Edition, p. 308}.

-No mutation has ever been found to increase genetic information and is always a loss of existing information. Mutations have been found to almost always make an organism worse off from what it originally was.

- Evidence against a gradual evolution can be found through the Cambrian Explosion. This is where animal fossils essentially appeared from nowhere in the Cambrian Strata. Fossils from every phyla have been found in the Cambrian Strata, supporting the fact that all these organisms coexisted. The fossils in the Precambrian layer (next deepest layer) have shown comparatively many fewer fossils than the Cambrian layer and have little relation to the fossils found in the Cambrian layer.

-The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything breaks down, not becomes more complex. (this makes the idea of something as complex as DNA arising from the primordial soup a scientific impossibility)

As you can see, this entire evolutionary theory is based upon the most coincidal conditions ever to be explained by science. Its just not possible.

Yeah Pony, all that makes tons of sense.

Originally Posted by: stacknyYeah Pony, all that makes tons of sense.

See, the thing about science is that if a theory or something doesn't work, we just try something else. You don't have that luxury with religion. You're told how it is and damned if you ask any questions. So while at least a portion of what you say might stand true, you should at least keep in mind that we're still studying and researching and we're bound to come up with wrong answers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to find new things.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsSee, the thing about science is that if a theory or something doesn't work, we just try something else. You don't have that luxury with religion. You're told how it is and damned if you ask any questions. So while at least a portion of what you say might stand true, you should at least keep in mind that we're still studying and researching and we're bound to come up with wrong answers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to find new things.

Yes Cryptic, I realize that, but up to this point the Evolutionary theory makes absolutely no sense and defies its own scientific laws. Abiogenesis has never occured and never will occur. When it does, maybe Ill start considering that theres some credibility in the theory and it makes some amount of sense.

Creationism makes sense. The three theories we have today are
A) We got here through abiogenis and mutations that made for great diversity and what we are today
B) Life was emplanted here by Aliens
C) Life was put here by a Creator

To this date, B and C make the most sense. At least they can come up with a source for how life was spawned. The problem with B is that it has to carry out the processes of A, which have not been found to be credible.

Ill choose C, which in my mind makes sense right now. I believe theres a God, I see his prophecies coming true in the Bible, and the theory of life that is based on Him makes sense.

Originally Posted by: stacknyYes Cryptic, I realize that, but up to this point the Evolutionary theory makes absolutely no sense and defies its own scientific laws. Abiogenesis has never occured and never will occur. When it does, maybe Ill start considering that theres some credibility in the theory and it makes some amount of sense.

Creationism makes sense. The three theories we have today are
A) We got here through abiogenis and mutations that made for great diversity and what we are today
B) Life was emplanted here by Aliens
C) Life was put here by a Creator

To this date, B and C make the most sense. At least they can come up with a source for how life was spawned. The problem with B is that it has to carry out the processes of A, which have not been found to be credible.

Ill choose C, which in my mind makes sense right now. I believe theres a God, I see his prophecies coming true in the Bible, and the theory of life that is based on Him makes sense.

Source? yes.
Explanation of how? No.

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...

And yet the theories still have no basis and defy there own laws. Theres simply no way around it.

Originally Posted by: stackny
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???

For the same reason everything else is taught in school. So that our offspring will learn what we've done and improve upon it. Fill in our blanks, discover what time has not allowed us to discover.

Originally Posted by: stacknySo if they havent found the reason yet, why are they teaching it in schools???

The only way for science to move forward is by peaking the interest of clever minds that'll bring new ideas to the table. What better way to do this than by teaching science in school?

So teach non-factual information and say, here build on this? What a start! Starting them with nothing. The theory isnt credible. Why teach it if theres no proof whatsoever that its true? Sounds like a big waste of time to me.

Originally Posted by: stacknySo teach non-factual information and say, here build on this? What a start! Starting them with nothing. The theory isnt credible. Why teach it if theres no proof whatsoever that its true? Sounds like a big waste of time to me.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's a waste of time. :)
Without science, we'd still be living in caves... you have to start at nothing to get somewhere.

Originally Posted by: PonyOnePerhaps if you believe that all the world came into being in an instant

In Robin Williams' words, "God just went click." I'm not arguing anything, its just a great quote from a great standup comedian.

Originally Posted by: stacknySo teach non-factual information and say, here build on this? What a start! Starting them with nothing. The theory isnt credible. Why teach it if theres no proof whatsoever that its true? Sounds like a big waste of time to me.

Perhaps you're not up to par on your definitions. Fact is something that can be proven true or false. Evolution falls into that category. I really find it hard to believe that it would come all this way for as long as it has if there wasn't a single bit of credible evidence for it. Science doesn't work that way. It doesn't just cling to things that aren't credible.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneOK, here we go.... company time rocks...


from wikipedia:



I guess there's a passage in there that you can't agree with in theory becasue it follows the line of natural selection, which you reject... but... since you're using mutations in defence of your opinion it is valid by proxy. If mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, and occur in DNA, then they can very well be passed down via ones genetics. It's why it is that cancer tends to run in families, as do twins, retardation, freckles, skin tabs, down syndrome, etc. Mutations occur in DNA, and can either add or subtract components from a gene, for better or worse.


Again, see above... first and foremost, the Cambrian Period encompassed 53.7 billion years, from 542 million years ago to 488.3 million years ago. That's a pretty long time...

Again, life is cumulative, retroactive if you will: the more creatures there are to reproduce, the more they will reroduce. And the more that they reproduce, the more their offspring will reproduce. Now within the span of 50 million years, give or take a few, there's a lot of time for life to accumulate. And evidence for the sudden creation of life would be negated (again, if you're gonna use it for your benefiet then by proxy you have to use it when it doesn't work in your favor as well) by the Neoproterozoic peoriod which preceeded it in which fossils were found of creatures drastically different from creatures we know of today. It is widely believed due to fossils found in the earlier Cambrian Strata which had not yet fully formed exoskeletons (or endoskeletons for that matter) that most of the creatures present in the latter Neoproterozoic period were soft-bodied and thus would not leave as many fossils as their bodies would have decayed primarily to nothingness.

And the reason that we get more fossils from the Cambrian period would be that they gradually adapted to their envirnoment, I know that this flies in the face of certain opions but it's well supported by the other examples you've cited.

Break time... I'll continue later.

Hold your horses...Ive got no problem at all with natural selection. Never said I did. Natural selection makes sense. However, it is not adaptation and it is not mutation. Simply differences in the genetic code that by chance work out. "Add or subtract components?" What does that mean? Mutations are always loss of information. There is no addition. An organism has never shown that its gained anything that hasnt already been copied on its genetic code. Thats another problem science encounters because nothing has ever shown to form structures it didnt already have.

I assume that 53.7 bilion is a typo as its actually 53.7 million. Nevertheless, why dont the organisms in the Cambrian strata have any resemblence to those in the precambrian and how are all 7 phylas there? The evolution didnt happen that quick.

Anyways, Im goin out. Ill be back later.

So this is what it's like to see a debate like this from the third person view. Nice to know what I was putting everyone through.

I heard of a tribe South America where they had paintings of giant lizards on their jars and vases, some of them were paintings of the people riding the lizards, so that might be imagination and art work, or they actually saw these big lizards.

And seriously, not trying to be a jerk or anything, but how is evolution easier to prove than the Bible, isnt evolution a theory? I am not trying to say you are wrong but I really am curious how some of you feel.

Originally Posted by: stacknySo teach non-factual information and say, here build on this? What a start! Starting them with nothing. The theory isn't credible. Why teach it if there's no proof whatsoever that its true? Sounds like a big waste of time to me.

what do suggest??? "**** it, read the bible it's all there." screw earth sciences, no need for 'em. the world and the universe is way to amazing to not think deeper than what some ancient philosophers thought with there limited understanding. how would an ancient dude describe his belief in creation.....hmmmmm...."o.k. like there is this god and he like just said abracadabra and poof everything was here.....and there was like animals and a garden and uuhh" the bible is coming to pass? you think there will be seven headed lions and ****?? c'mon get a grip. Noah's ark?? a fact?? or just a story. if it is a story then why don't they tell ya that. could it all (the bible) be a story??? myth??? the entire judeo religion is lifted from other cultures. Jesus said some cool things....none of them new, but cool just the same. my belief is NO ONE KNOWS.....so keep lookin' and theorizing, hypothesizing and striving for understanding!!

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jpwhat do suggest??? "**** it, read the bible it's all there." screw earth sciences, no need for 'em. the world and the universe is way to amazing to not think deeper than what some ancient philosophers thought with there limited understanding. how would an ancient dude describe his belief in creation.....hmmmmm...."o.k. like there is this god and he like just said abracadabra and poof everything was here.....and there was like animals and a garden and uuhh" the bible is coming to pass? you think there will be seven headed lions and ****?? c'mon get a grip. Noah's ark?? a fact?? or just a story. if it is a story then why don't they tell ya that. could it all (the bible) be a story??? myth??? the entire judeo religion is lifted from other cultures. Jesus said some cool things....none of them new, but cool just the same. my belief is NO ONE KNOWS.....so keep lookin' and LEARNING!!

Which cultures exactly?

india......persia ....china

i don't mean totally plagerized religion but taking stories such as god impregnating a woman and creating a great man/god on earth......flood stories......garden of eden story....check out joseph campbell's books.