The Theory of Evolution - THE GREAT HOAX

1. 60

   God is in kitchenposted 11 years ago

   Did it happen, I mean, seriously? What if a God just dropped us here from the space? Or we just came out of thin air? Why Evolution?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Is it raining by you? You've been posting an awful lot today...
      
      But anyway, you can't prove that those things didn't happen, but there is no evidence they did, and therefore no reason to suspect they did. There is plenty of evidence evolution happened, across many disciplines.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Have you seen that evidence yourself?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Of course.  Haven't you?  Any honest and rational person knows that plants and animals, including humans, are evolving all around us.  We see it in everything from banana trees to the flu virus to "improved" strains of grain.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               See. Those are not evidence for Evolution, but they seem to be. There are rich people and poor, but because there are a rich class and a poor class does not make Marxism true.
               
               And, by the way, what have you seen, I mean what evidence of Evolution, around us?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The flue virus evolves each year into something it wasn't.
                  
                  Western humanity is increasing in size, while I believe eastern peoples are decreasing.
                  
                  We are slowly losing our toes, our wisdom teeth and the hymen.
                  
                  The banana tree can no long reproduce without human help.  It would die out in one generation without humanity.
                  
                  Milk cows now produce many times what any cow of just a few hundred years did.
                  
                  Wheat is far more resistant to certain ailments that it ever was before.
                  
                  These are all due to changes in the genetic structure of the various organisms; the definition of evolution in action.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Did you see them ALL yourself? Or have you just heard that they happen? Have read somewhere?

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I have not examined wisdom teeth, but have talked to dentists and seen the specs.  I have talked to farmers although never grown grain myself.  I absolutely see increase in size; take a look at clothing, furniture, armor suits, etc. from a few centuries ago.
                        
                        I have not seen the flue virus (my old eyes won't focus that small anymore) but do know that it changes as if I don't get new shots I get the flu.
                        
                        Doctors and medical literature tell me we're losing the hymen in women; I have not examined the hundreds of infants to determine if that is true.
                        
                        Is that how it works?  If you can't see, on every street corner, a cat giving birth to a dog then evolution isn't happening (that's what one theist told me)?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           It's actually a bit more complicated. Reading a medical literature does not guarantee that what you are reading is true. It can be outright false, twisted facts and so on.
                           
                           And then, words have limited power to transmit what we have experienced ourselves, in real life conditions. Hearing that your body is full of bacteria, and watching that yourself, through proper optical devices, and realizing it yourself, is a totally different matter, given that I *believe* bacteria exists.
                           
                           
                           The symptoms and conditions that you have mentioned, does not prove that there has been an Evolution, and that it is still continuing. It's like believing that because someone has found cat-hair near a murder scene, so the cat has committed the murder.
                           
                           
                           The cat was merely intrigued as it saw the murder being committed.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              So, yes, you must see the cat giving birth on every street corner to believe in evolution.  I understand.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 And you must see God come down to the street to believe in its existence.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              I do like your critical thinking. However if you could just use that same critical thinking towards your bible, you'd have something.
                              
                              The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But I'm not going to do all the research for you. I will tell you however to look at the color of your skin as an example. Look at the horse, donkey and mule as another. Why not look at the lion and the tiger while your at it.
                              
                              These are all things we can see, and they all are evidence of evolution.

                              replyreport
                     2. 60

                        nightwork4posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        if you read many articles that agree on the same thing but are bias, then the chances of it being true are pretty good. all christians have is a book, written by no one is sure who , supposedly by the word of their god. in fact , there are two books, old and new and they are so different, it's amazing that people believe in either.

                        replyreport
         2. 60

            twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I assume you believe Jesus was crucified and all that, correct? Did you witness that? The US won oodles of gold medals at the Olympics. Did you witness that? How do you know those events took place?
            
            I haven't witnessed humans and chimps evolve from common ancestors, but I've read about the actual evidence that supports that fact. All of it adds up, so I accept it. If it's a hoax, then it's the biggest hoax in history, because 99.9 percent of biologists are in on it, not to mention cosmologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               "I assume you believe Jesus was crucified and all that, correct? Did you witness that? The US won oodles of gold medals at the Olympics. Did you witness that? How do you know those events took place?"
               
               - How do you know that I believe in the existence of Jesus? Did you ever see any photograph of Jesus Christ? I see no reason to believe the myth of Christ.
               
               The US won gold medals at the Olympics. Yes, I can still argue that. But perhaps there are videos that showcase the whole event, and you can see that stuff yourself. If you don't find any photographic evidence, then it maybe another hoax, like the moon-landing and the *fight against terrorism*.
               
               I don't believe anything without evidence, just as YOU do not believe anything about God, without seeing any evidence. It appears, though, that you DO believe all that science-books tell you, without ever even caring to research whether what those books are true or not. There is a better word for this, which is hypocrisy.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The Jesus remark wasn't directed at you, and was just used as an example.
                  
                  "It appears, though, that you DO believe all that science-books tell you, without ever even caring to research whether what those books are true or not."
                  
                  Good point. If I read one science book, and it says one thing, then another science book which is about the same topic, but says something contradictory, then I might suspect something is either not on the up & up, or they have a theory which is stilll under debate. There is no debate among scientists that evolution took place. There is debate over some of the mechanisms of evolution, but that that occurs is a hallmark of science.
                  
                  I'll believe something about gods when some presents some independent, peer-reviewed evidence that something - ANYthing - supernatural exists. Of course, if that was the case, it would no longer be supernatural...

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     " If I read one science book, and it says one thing, then another science book which is about the same topic, but says something contradictory, then I might suspect something is either not on the up & up, "
                     
                     
                     - Be careful. There are many religions, and almost all of them argue that there is some kind of a Supreme Spirit, or God, or something like that. Religions like Buddhisms do not talk about God, but they do not as well refute the idea of its possibility.
                     
                     Does that prove God exists? ...Let me just edit your own words, and you see yourself-
                     
                     
                     "Good point. If I read one religious book, and it says one thing, then another religious book which is about the same topic, but says something contradictory, then I might suspect something is either not on the up & up, or they have a theory which is stilll under debate. There is no debate among religious leaders that God exists. There is debate over some of the characteristics of God, but that it exists is a hallmark of religion."

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Clever. Thanks for helping make my point.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           It as well says how science can be just like religion. Science is merely exceptional that it tries to provide evidence - and that - for some folks, it may just require to read scientific literature to believe in them.

                           replyreport
   2. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, we didn't actually just drop out of the sky. Some say it was the spaghetti monster who was sitting on top of a turtle. Others' argue it was actually the turtle sitting on top of the earth that was creating small turtles that eventually evolved into human beings... anything is possible, even gods in the skies.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Kangaroo_Jaseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Don't forget that big turtle was blue with red pokadots.

         replyreport
   3. 66

      aka-djposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Because the hoax is a means to an end.
      
      All those who worship science will believe everything that science tells them. Be it right, wrong fantasy or fact.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Replace "science" with "religion" and you've hit the nail on the head.  At least science is testable.  If you want to test evolution, dose a bunch of fruit flies with radiation and/or chemicals over 20 or 30 generations and see if they change.  Then explain that God reached down and effected the changes; that it wasn't really the radiation (and test that as well).

         replyreport
      2. 60

         twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         How does one worship a process?

         replyreport
         1. 75

            jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Is that rhetorical?
            The human brain is the biggest//brightest processor humans know -and they worship it, force everything else to worship it, more than any other thing. The human ego is a factory of processes.
            
            To paraphrase Al Pacino, "Kevin, The next thousand years is right around the corner. Eddie Barzoon... take a good look, because he's the poster child for the next millennium. These people, it's no mystery where they come from. You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire. You build egos the size of cathedrals. Fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse. Grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green gold-plated fantasies until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own god..."
            
            
            James.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               aka-dj said "those who worship science." Science is a process, not a thing or an entity. I suppose on could worship scientists. But worshipping science is like worshipping critical thinking.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Exactly, the worship of thinking...and the danger there is precisely, or ironically, where the entire story started from the sensational perspective.

                  replyreport
         2. 66

            aka-djposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Get the definition for worship, and you will have your answer.

            replyreport
   4. 70

      Titen-Sxullposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Did it happen? What evolution? Yeah it happens every time something reproduces. Evolution is genetic variation in a population over time. Chances are if you have kids they are different from you and your spouse, traits are passed on from one generation to the next, that base level heredity is a big part of evolution. The only difference between the minute changes and the big changes is the amount of generations that pass.
      
      Is it POSSIBLE that a God simply conjured us out of dirt? Sure. But does that really explain anything? For instance we are almost identical to Chimps genetically speaking, and we look and behave quite a lot like them as well. If a God did create us how do we explain those similarities? The Bible doesn't even MENTION apes, let alone explain why God decided to make us in their image (or was it apes that were made in God's image). Was God just feeling really uncreative so he took an ape, fused a chromosome and called it man?
      
      See a theory has to have explanatory power, evolution not only has mountains of evidence supporting it it also explains things better than magical creation.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         My perspective on this:
         Humans being the sum-substance of all created things are intrinsically and genetically programmed with traits//attributes, as well as, information regarding all species in creation, in order to mange them without much effort. My position is man has suffered some sort of temporary amnesia {likened to the unused 90% of their brains, so to speak} presently unable to recall completely that information. But little blips of it -skewed or otherwise- seem to be popping into his active memory, resulting in the many desires to understand, apply a myriad of ideas//tests to these processes of nature and will at some point have these things brought to their remembrance.
         
         
         Mounds of information, yes. Mounds of evidence, speculative. Mounds of facts, none. Magic? Definitely not.
         James.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Titen-Sxullposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Your "perspective" is that, but you didn't get that from any holy book or extrapolate it from any known facts.
            
            The thing with creationism is that it's all assumptions with no facts to back them up. That's because most forms of creationism are based in the stories of creation found in the Bible and other religious texts. The Bible offers no answers for the how and why God created things, he simply summoned them into existence. The questions raised by this are innumerable.
            
            Evolution has lot's of facts backing it up. For one thing the process of speciation, where on species becomes another, has been DIRECTLY observed and studied in nature and in laboratory conditions. There can hardly be a more solid form of fact than when something is directly observed and charted scientifically.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         brotheryochananposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Cohen, C., Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, Science 316:1836, 2007.
         But this has been a significant and powerful evolutionary argument. How many people had their faith wrecked on those “mythical” rocks? Now we have half of the chimpanzee Y chromosome and learn that it is only 70% identical to human. This is evidence that humans and chimpanzees are very different. How different? To quote the famous geneticist, Svante Pääbo, “I don’t think there’s any way to calculate a number … In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.” This statement was made before the chimp Y chromosome data became available. If the number is incalculable, can we not jettison every evolutionary story of chimp-human common ancestry based on genetics? The new data on the chimp Y chromosome makes the case for common ancestry that much worse.
         
         zIn time: Science always supports what God said

         replyreport
         1. 82

            parrsterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            well said

            replyreport
   5. 56

      stoneyyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Because its commonly observed.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Casimiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why do people insist on feeding the trolls? No argument you make with GIIK rational or otherwise is going to win him over. He simply doesn't understand the scientific process, peer review, or even what a Theory such as evolution really is vs. a Law of science, etc. It's best to just let such people die on the vine, so to speak.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         BUT IT'S SOOOO HARRRRDDDDD.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Florida Crackerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   7. 77

      calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Micro evolution has been proven, it is observable. Unless God is trying to trick us (which would be out of the character of a loving God) then evolution happened and continues to happen. Look at the story of Noah, the Bible does not say two or seven of every animal, it says two or seven of every KIND. As well as that they will repopulate. Now this is just an example, since the Ark didn't happen all that long ago I do not know how well that idea would hold. I would encourage you to look into the Genesis story again though, there is nothing that says God created every animal exactly as it is now. He created each animal after it's KIND. Its very interesting to ponder about.

      replyreport
2. 60

   knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

   Supports the progressive system of: I get to have more than you, and take whatever I want from nature - for me, me, me.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      LOLOLOLOL

      replyreport
3. 72

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   Evidence for evolution is overwhelming. So, why not evolution?
   
   I have also seen creation at work through miracles -- circumvention of physical reality to bend or break the laws of physical reality.
   
   Science studies the products of creation. Those products of creation follow certain laws -- gravity, electromagnetism, chemistry and more. Evolution is simply one of those laws.
   
   Those who look at the Bible literally are missing out. They're being lazy and arrogant. God wants us to be hard working and humble, instead. Scientists do it. When they approach a problem to solve, they remain humble until they've gathered sufficient information to draw conclusions.
   
   The religious literalists who disrespect science are courting delusion. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. Quite the contrary. I'm saying their interpretation is wrong, if reality shows that they're wrong. Evolution is reality. So is gravity. But that doesn't prevent miracles from interrupting those physical laws every once in awhile. I've seen a few -- one of them just like that of Moses parting the sea.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Kangaroo_Jaseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Noone parted any seas. All of the listed miracles in the bible are parables, not literal miracles of a mythological creation that defies physical laws.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A excellent answer lonestar but I fear that 99% of the fundamentalists who think evolutionary theory is a lie of Satan will ignore everything you say. This topic comes up time and time again with the creationists insisting that we 'non scientists by profession' prove evolution to them. They are as you say lazy and simply are not interested in looking at the published evidence for themselves. When anyone asks them for evidence to support a literal Genesis creation, we get nothing but a 'because that's what the bible says'. I'm sorry but we may as well bang our heads against a brick wall. It's really sad.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How did you confuse Gravitation with Evolution? Are they on equal ground?

      replyreport
   4. 61

      thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with your stance here, especially the wrong interpretation of many who read the Bible.  I am a person of faith and belief in hire power, but I also believe that that power gives us tools to relate to the world as it is now.  I believe that that power evolves as we may (or may not) have and that it is up to us to uncover through study, prayer, conversation and meditation that which is intended for by the Creatuve Spirit.
      
      Playing both sides do the fence here, I'm wondering if anyone has seen Katt Williams recent stand up special.  He has a bit on evolution, made me take pause.

      replyreport
   5. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously, that is false, even though it was used to support the argument of evolution, it was not necessary to make up fabrications. By all means, please feel free to pen your fantasies in regards to your faith, but we don't need them to support reality, thanks.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         LOLOLOL

         replyreport
      2. 61

         thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know, have your eyes never played tricks on you? Never felt de ja vu? Could those not represent phenomena that, inexplicable by common standards, we can classify as "miracles"? Or at least a slim glimpse into a reality where miraculous happenings are literally possible if not readily available?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Those aren't miracles and probably are explicable.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               How do we know those aren't miracles? How do we explain them? Even if you apply scientific reasoning to "wrinkles" in our reality, isn't it possible to define them as both of science and of God? Are the workings of the universe, however we explain them not miraculous?

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Like the work of Zeus or Thor? Which god do we invoke here?
                  
                  Just because a terrestrial explanation is not readily available for us to understand does not mean we jump to conclusions and call them miracles.

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Tricks and de ja vu can be explained as not miracles. Only the gullible would think that these things are miracles.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I think that we have no idea, even when we can explain something, what a larger fabric it may come from.  It doesn't make me gullible to associate those things with the miraculous.  It means that to me there is a direct link between scientific wonders (electricity, radio waves, brain function) and the miraculous (I choose definition 1 from Merriam Webster, 'an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs').  Were early humans gullible because they didn't know the earth was round? They had no idea what a larger reality there was because it was not theirs to understand at that time in history (or at that place in God's plan).

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Correct, but when people thought the world was flat they just didn't have all the facts. The same goes with miracles. Just because we can't explain something now doesn't mean we won't be able to explain it later.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     We agree here.  I am also suggesting that I am open to the possibility that we may (depending on many factors) understand someday that all things scientific, natural, unnatural, universal and individual may in fact also all be miraculous.

                     replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, it does mean that you are gullible. 
                  
                  When somethings happens in your life that you can't find an obvious reason or cause for, when you see an action happening that you can't explain, and therefore declare it to be of divine intervention you are exhibiting the classic definition of gullibility.
                  
                  When you are "miraculously" healed of an uncurable cancer there are two options: "I don't know why it happened" and "God did it for me".  Why choose the latter?  The first is clearly true, the latter unsubstantiated.  Why choose a cause that you have no idea is true or not?  Ignorance of a cause, not understand the "why", does NOT mean "God did it" - to make the choice to believe that anyway is being gullible.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     That is a bit narrow, yes?
                     Granted, saying "g/God did it. Period. End story" is also narrow.
                     Gullible simply implies that a thing is considered or accepted at face value is sufficient, requiring no further experience, consideration, experimentation, scrutiny --and even to a large degree observation. The acceptance as infallible fact or truth "as is". Gullibility applies equally to both sides of Theos - equation and sensation.
                     
                     And again, to reiterate, the Theory of Relativity did not just appear out of thin air. Like amnesiac flashes, this information awoke in his memory. It was skewed (incomplete}, no doubt, but nonetheless real. Had he, like Aristotle, Darwin, Democritus, Empedocles, Monsieur Lamarck, you and I stopped at the thought, then yes all are guilty of gullibility. Those who do, as is their prerogative, will not experience full remembrance nor the joy of interacting with the experience that instance brings.
                     
                     James

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, gullibility is most often accepting "as is" without substantiation.
                        
                        An example might be accepting that Man has some kind of racial memory from millenia past, awakening in memories like amnesiac flashes.  While it might be nice to believe that (it puts little insignificant Wilderness on par with Einstein but for a flash of racial memory) I can find no evidence for such a thing.  It would seem to require a belief in reincarnation (something else unsubstantiated) as well as believing that racial memory is carried in a zygote (more unsubstantiated belief).  I would prefer to believe that actual thought and rational consideration can and does come up with ideas, as I experience them myself (some evidence however small).
                        
                        I am therefore not gullible enough to believe in a racial memory that springs forth and brings us "new" knowledge from times past when that knowledge was not available.

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, we could engage that debate entirely -and perhaps should explore it at some point.
                           But I will say, reincarnation or incarnation is not required for information/knowledge to be complete in the individual, unless of course nature is having a laugh, at our expense. In essence, humans exist only to be the butt of her jokes.
                           
                           Much speculation surrounds and practical application abound in favor of "racial" thinking and "information  partitioning // memory restoration" -even within traditionally accepted Evolutionary Thinking. Many an acceptable consideration for my mention exist, although none as radical, I suppose, as mine to date. This is what has been bogging me down now for 20 years, 400 edited legal-sized pages and liters of espresso. lol.
                           
                           James.
                           
                           EDIT:
                           for the record, experiments and consideration of chronic memory loss { Alzheimer's }, memory recalls by amnesia persons -and some from Insomniacs as well, are being scrutinized to further access this probability.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, that should probably be the topic of another day.  There are alternative explanations (telepathy, either through time or thoughts/reasoning from multiple people impinging on the subject and giving rise to ideas) that come to mind as well.  It could be an interesting subject.
                              
                              I assume, though, that you understand my position; it would be gullible of me to accept that as factual.  I don't know you, I don't know of your expertise, study or knowledge.  I know nothing of the subject myself.  To accept it without evidence, a made-up concept that sounds pretty and intriguing but without evidence, would be silly. 
                              
                              It's how snake oil salesmen made their living in the old west - convincing gullible people that "medicine" of absolutely no value would cure all their ills, and although people have improved somewhat in that regard we still have a long way to go.  The ability of the human mind to rationalize that what they want to be true is actually true and real can be astounding.

                              replyreport
               3. 0

                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  gullible |ˈgələbəl|
                  adjective
                  easily persuaded to believe something; credulous: an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money.
                  
                  It certainly makes you gullible to associate those things with the miraculous. Those of us raised with a belief system and told of miracles are susceptible to being gullible because we were told that miraculous things happen. You by the very definition of gullible are gullible because you were (easily persuaded to believe something). Science has no agenda, it just wants the truth, while all religions have an agenda (your money). First it makes you gullible and then it takes your money.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     To those of you (Rad Man, wilderness) who want to label me or anyone who chooses to believe that the explainable, scientifically definable is equally as likely to be miraculous as gullible, I will wear that label with pride.  If my choice to believe in the possibility of a dual reality structure where science and scientific discovery exits at the same time and for the same purpose as the divine and Creator given is gullible, then isn't your choice to believe seemingly with as much fervor that it is not possible equally as gullible? Neither one of us knows anything more than what we are supposed to at this time in history and given place in Creation.  People used to (and still do in cases) think an evil spirit was leaving the body when someone sneezed, or that women were "polluted" due to monthly cycles and had to be sequestered from greater society.  Were they gullible, or just unaware of a truth that was sure to come but just not in their life times? This is like a school yard fight, my dad can beat up your dad kind of argument.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        To accept the possibility of science and divine intermingling throughout our universe isn't gullible; it is realistic.  When the divine is defined as being undetectable only a fool would claim it doesn't exist.
                        
                        On the other hand, you don't just accept the possibility, you accept it as truth and reality.  That is what makes you gullible, according to the definition of the word.  A willingness to accept a proposition as real without evidence; the side effect of credulity.
                        
                        The same holds true for our ancestors that believed menstrual periods caused women to be polluted and it was necessary to sequester them.  There was little evidence of harm from the "pollution" and what there was was anecdotal and/or coincidental.  No one ever actually tested the idea, just accepted it as true. No one ever saw a demon from sneezing, but it made a good story and thus must be true.  Their gullibility comes from a failure to actually examine the ideas rather than willingly accept them as "common knowledge".

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           I had to think really long and hard to come up with an response to your comments here.  I have tried (maybe I failed) to make my comments in this thread without presenting myself as someone who blindly believes that all of my ideas are the only sound ones and that anyone who presents a counter must be an imbecile.  Your attempt here to confine me to what you think my "truth" is is insulting.  What possibility exactly is it that I am gullibly accepting as truth and reality? You haven't been specific. 
                           
                           Once again if you are suggesting that my choice to believe in scientific proof being a tool of Creation I wear the label gladly.  I like the fact that I am willing to accept SOME propositions as real despite not having evidence, that is what faith is.  I prefer to live my life with faith rather than a dogged need for explanations and reasons and answers.  I am also willing to believe that I may be totally wrong and there really is no single entity high in the sky pulling all the strings.  You seem to have missed that or rather I must not have made that clear enough.
                           
                           It sounds to me like you, friend, are not able to let go of your hard pressed need to be smarter than the average bear and admit that while I may be gullible in my beliefs, so too, may you.

                           replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, if someone thinks evil spirits exist the body when one sneezes they are gullible. Why? Because they took it on someones word that that is the case.

                        replyreport
4. 61

   Magic Alexposted 11 years ago

   Did you know that dachshunds were bred to hunt small, burrowing animals such as weasels? By breeding for the traits that were needed for the task ( Tiny legs, good olfactory senses, etc.,)  animal breeders were able to "create" an entirely new breed. This isn't, "Well, maybe."It's evolution. That's all it is. Except instead of animal breeders, it's natural conditions. For example, if there were an island where the only two animals were beagles and weasels, the beagles that were too big to chase the weasels into their burrows would be less likely to get food, and therefore survive. Smaller beagles would be more likely to survive, and therefore would reproduce more, with increasing likelihood of the "small gene" to pass on to the next generation. In time, the Hypothetical Island Beagles would be smaller than others.
   
   Wait, that can't be right, because God made dachshunds, dinosaurs, men, cavemen, monkeys, mosquitoes, and everything else ever at the same time.
   
   I'll admit, I'm an atheist. But I have an immense amount of respect for lone77star for not raging against science. Faith is just that. It's not your concern that I have none, just as it's not my concern what faith you choose to follow. Science isn't some organization out to disprove God. It's simply our understanding of the world around us. If God did exist, science wouldn't argue the fact, it would prove it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You said - "If God did exist, science wouldn't argue the fact, it would prove it." 
      
      
      There is your *belief* that science can prove the existence of God, if such a thing exists. Isn't that your religion?
      
      
      
      Science is man-made, some intuitions, some visions, all coming down from the human consciousness or whatever you choose to call it. Many people have intuitions of God, and that the theory of Evolution is a hoax. Say what? They are just as right as you are. Did you prove Evolution?
      
      
      When I say 'the world is a bad place', some people may instantly see bad things happening around us. That *seems*. It may not be true. The 'evidence' you provided gives air. Did you see Evolution in action? Share the facts.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Magic Alexposted 11 years ago

   Edit: Sorry. Badgers, not weasels. But, same thing.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Your examples are of natural selection, which isn't debatable. I think some of the confusion comes when people assume natural selection results in new species that eventually become completely different in form. (a multiple ton dinosaur to a several ounce bird being the most prominent example)
      
      I don't believe we were put here by aliens and I don't think humanity was formed from the clay of the earth but there are plenty of unanswered questions within the theory of evolution. Enough to make me leery of teaching kids in a manner which implies the book is closed on the subject.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Magic Alexposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Natural selection over millions of years, based on a widely varying set of planetary conditions? I can't even fathom the many incarnations Earth went through in all that time. Not to mention that plenty of dinosaurs were rather small.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I agree. However, as you admit, one has to imagine those  environmental and physical changes. Selective breeding doesn't count as an example. It's been said that if man ceased to manipulate the breeding of dogs for aesthetic pleasure it would only take three or four generations for the breeds to effectively disappear. I don't think a canary would revert back to a dinosaur.
            
            When people get so bogged down in accepting what they are told we lose our collective ability to question and learn.  I see evolution theory, for the layman, as going that route. There remain unanswered questions that should be open for discussion, but the conversation usually degrades down to dogmatic debate on a religious forum. With both sides entrenched and unwilling to admit problems in their argument, or unaware of the problems since they have  blindly accepted a lot of what they believe because they trust that the source they have chosen is more reliable than the alternative source.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               " It's been said that if man ceased to manipulate the breeding of dogs for aesthetic pleasure it would only take three or four generations for the breeds to effectively disappear."
               
               I don't doubt that one little bit, at least in the case of many breeds of dog.  But, Emile, that's exactly in line with what the theory says will happen.  Consider a simplistic example:
               
               A breeder of dachshunds has a new litter of pups to be examined.  One has long legs, one is yellow and the rest fit with what he things will be accepted.  Those two are either neutered or killed; either way they don't reproduce.  The conditions set by the environment (the breeder) for reproduction weren't met.
               
               Man suddenly dies out overnight.  The next litter of pups (already incubating in the womb) contain the same mix.  The long legged one survives because it can run away from predators better.  The yellow one survives because it can hide in the yellowish grass in the area.  The others die out.  The environment has changed, with different requirements for survival, and the breed either changes with it or dies out. 
               
               Simplistic, yes, but it serves as an example of evolution in action and is exactly what we should expect to see.  Selective breeding absolutely IS an example of evolution; the dogs environment (for evolutionary purposes) is the breeder.  That the environment is intelligent is immaterial; it is still the environment, setting requirements for survival. 
               
               The only real difference is that an intelligent environment will effect permanent changes much more rapidly that one that is not.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Here's the problem I have with your post. We don't affect permanent change. Genetically modified corn is corn. Cows that give more milk are still cows. Dogs are still dogs, no matter how ugly we make them. Time and nature are the only forces that may be able to permanently change anything.
                  
                  I'm not arguing against evolution. But when we take what we can observe and make far reaching assumptions it shouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that not everyone will agree. And, the simple fact is, some aspects of alternative ideas may prove right in the end.
                  
                  Origin of Species was published in 1859. The first dinosaur bone was found in 1858. 150 years of research limited to evidence collected and observations made on this planet only does not, in my mind, equate to anything more than the fact that we are beginning to find clues that will, hopefully,  lead us in the right direction to solve the riddle of the origin of life.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     And here's the problem I have with your post .  We actually do affect permanent change, or at least as permanent as living organisms allow - they will always change through time.  A dachshund could conceivably evolve into a wolfhound with enough time and become something it very definitely isn't now. 
                     
                     There is another problem here, as well, in defining what species an animal is.  Usually, two animals are defined as the same species if they can reproduce together, but that is a simplistic view that doesn't always work.  A chihuahua will never successfully mate and produce offspring with a great dane without human help.  Are they the same species?  You say that a dog will always be a dog, but will it?  How do you define "dog"?
                     
                     Failing the mating test biologists will look at ecological similarities, but chihuahuas and great danes will never occupy the same ecological niche either.  Ancestory can be compared as well - how close are the genetics - but as two species diverge and take their own paths there will always be the question of how close is close.  We're pretty darn close, genetically, to a chimp - are we then the same species?  The term species is a defined function, and we usually define it as to what we are comfortable with.  A Chihuahua and a great dane are both domestic dogs because, well, we like it that way.  Similarly, we still classify a banana tree as a banana tree even though it cannot reproduce at all anymore (without help).  It is clearly very different from its ancestors, but we maintain the same species designation as a convenience.
                     
                     Absolutely evolution depends on extrapolation of known evidence.  As far as I know we have never seen a species change into another to the point that everyone will declare they are different species.  Part of this, though, is the determination of some that it can't happen - no matter how divergent organisms are it will still be declared that they are the same species because 1) they had the same ancestors and 2) if they are different species that means evolution is true and that cannot be allowed to happen. 
                     
                     At this point in our knowledge gathering, we are left with the fact that all evidence points to evolution into divergent species.  It is the only mechanism we are aware of that even might work outside of the creation of every species throughout the planet's history by a creator, and that has no evidence at all. Certainly, keep looking, keep testing, keep thinking, but for the nonce go with what we have. 
                     
                     Finally, I have to disagree that is too much a stretch of the imagination that some will not agree that it is possible or that it happened.  It isn't that stretch that alienates most of those people; it is that it disagrees with a pre-formed notion based on a desire that it not be so.  If we were able to artificially evolve an animal into two clearly different species the complaint would be that it can't happen naturally.  If we did watch it happen naturally the complaint would be that it only happened once.  If we watched it happen a thousand times the complaint would be that we don't know it happened that way a 100 million years ago.  We will never convince those that find the idea in conflict with a viewpoint that is necessary for their happiness.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I suppose if you took a Chihuahua and separated it from all other breeds of dogs, left if for a kazillion years, it might be a completely different animal. If you kept only Chihuahuas and Great Danes together you would, as you said, propably continue to have Chihuahuas and Great Danes.  But, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. They are breeds of dogs. We have manipulated them, but it is not a permananat change. We are forced to continue to separate and manage the breeding of dogs. Without continued manipulation by humans, the breeds would quickly die.
                        
                        I'm not sure what you brought up humans and chimps for. Simple observation clearly shows enough differences in each that even a child wouldn't scratch their head on whether they were different animals or not.
                        
                        Bananas. Wild bananas have no problem reproducing. Man has tampered with the genetics of domesticated banana trees long enough that I don't think anyone questions what is responsible for the fact that they can no longer reproduce. However, we have not permanently changed the banana tree. We are only responsible for the extinction of trees that we domesticated and fiddled with until we made them unable to reproduce. We call it a banana tree because it produces bananas. I would assume that it is similar to the fruit we get from the wild banana tree.
                        
                        I pretty much agree with the rest of your statement. But, I think, preconceived notions on the lay level work both ways. Most arguments are so dogmatic that evidence presented, either way, would be ignored until they were forced because people appear to believe they have some sort of stake in the outcome. It is what it is. However it happened; it already did.
                        
                        As you said, evolution is the only mechanism we are aware of that even might work outside of the creation of every species. I get the fundamental religious digging their heels in. I'm a little confused by the vehemence that sometimes comes from the other side. The answers will be revealed when we find them.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Umm.  I didn't make my point clear.  Chihuahua and great danes are the same species, or are they really?  They can't interbreed, they would not occupy the same ecological niche if left to go wild, and have massively different appearances.  Humans and chimps would occupy very similar niches if civilization did not exist and have a more similar appearance (but for a flat nose and some hair we might be chimps).  Although chimps and humans could physically mate I have no idea if the offspring would be viable (and don't want to know).  Why are we classified as different species, then, while dogs aren't?  Because that would make us monkeys, just taking a different evolutionary trail?  Or because dogs that are clearly different would have had to evolve to get that way?
                           
                           Man evolved (bred) dogs into two animals that are as different as chimps and humans, but refuse to call them different species.  The point was that the defined term species is almost useless when deciding if evolution has occurred.  When we see it happening, but don't want to, we simply declare that they are still the same species even though clearly they aren't.
                           
                           Banana trees - I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that there are no wild banana trees left.  Only cultivated ones that cannot reproduce, and can they truly be called the same species as those that could reproduce?  Or have we evolved a new species, just as we did with the chihuahua?
                           
                           Vehemence - no, the answers will not be revealed when found.  Those that do not wish to learn actual answers will insist that any proof or evidence offered is false.  The vehemence occurs (at least in my case) when they then go on and insist that no one knows the answer but them and that that answer be accepted and taught universally while ignoring and/or flat out lying about the subject.  Not satisfied to deny knowledge and learning to themselves or their children, they will deny it to everyone else as well.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              You made your point clear, I simply think it might be described as reaching. The only thing prohibiting a Great Dane and a Chihuahua  from breeding is size. Yes, we were responsible for changing the size but you can't honestly think they aren't both dogs. If a  male chihuahua breeds a female beagle and that offspring breeds a labrador which breeds a Great Dane you'd still have a dog. Basically, if all dogs but Chihuahuas and Great Danes suddenly disappeared from the earth, we might decide to call them different species.
                              
                              And I've learned something new about bananas. Yes, there are wild bananas that do reproduce. Apparently it was a genetic mistake that gave the first edible banana thousands of years ago. It was sterile and we've been taking cuttings from the descendents of two wild types that had this mutatation ever since because they could never reproduce.  So, we apparently didn't evolve anything. We took advantage of something.
                              
                              And, I have no idea what point you are attempting to make about apes.  Maybe, if an ape could join the discussion and share his thoughts on the topic you would have a point.

                              replyreport
6. 61

   Magic Alexposted 11 years ago

   Sure, except science isn't Wikipedia. A scientific claim needs to be proven before it's accepted as theory. (which does not mean guess, but "A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be."
   
   If I might ask, how did you feel about my animal breeding example?

   replyreport
7. 58

   PositiveInsightposted 11 years ago

   This seems to be a debate that roughly equates to a God vs Science scenario. I believe this to be an almost futile argument. In my opinion, if God is to exist in an ultimate level of being sense, then he is well outside the bounds of science which are our laws that govern space and time.
   When you can learn to distinguish the two you may find that they are separate entities.
   Our perception and emotional connection with God are a more constructive debates, as well as deciding whether you believe that reality and/or existence stretches beyond what we know and perceive to exist.
   Religion is a poor choice of words to use when debating about the existence and influence of God because religion is really an attempt of a unified system towards a particular perceived resemblance of God which through time and human influence begins to detract from the essence of it's values and begins to serve our own distorted realities rather than a reasonable truth.

   replyreport
8. 75

   jacharlessposted 11 years ago

   The genetics of each creature cannot be altered no matter how long a time frame, unless by interbreeding, as in the dachshund concept. This, then, is forced selection, not natural selection. Because nature, if it selected specific species, would ultimately form one singular genetic creature -using all the elements of itself {plant, insect, mammal, reptile etc}- and seize to exist. As far as science knows, nature has not produced any new species of creature. So the theory of "outward nature" or the formation of multiple creatures from one original is what is used. That too forced selection, which is slicing the genetics more and more, at which point the genes will collapse from excessive splicing//mutation and once again nature would seize to exist. Either way, then, nature has been doomed from [her] beginning. The idea that each species is genetically unique and each species developing its perfection, is yet another view. Then the question comes in: why did nature make the many species inferior to begin with?
   What if nature is not Evolution. What if nature is an Interchangeable, removing one species and replacing it with another, like one would a battery on a Chevy. A new and improved battery is added and the old one chucked to the trash. If the previous battery is recycled, then nature learning itself as it goes. One false move and again, nature destroys itself.
   
   James.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "The genetics of each creature cannot be altered no matter how long a time frame, unless by interbreeding"
      
      Is your claim then that radiation (alpha, beta, gamma or cosmic) does not exist or that it can't change DNA?  That chemicals won't change DNA strings, and that a DNA string always reproduces exactly the same?
      
      All of these would be necessary for the claim that genetics never changes, it would seem.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         What I said was without interbreeding, a species -animal, plant, human cannot be altered outside of itself. Meaning a fish cannot become plant, no matter how much low frequency radiated light is introduced. As said before, if enough radiation//mutation, or other splicing, occurs in the specie, eventually the specie will be destroyed. Imagine it like a Xerox machine. Copy after copy until the ink runs out.
         
         And, although many species carry similar traits, or all together different species carry traits of non-similar types, does not justify the process of evolution. The more similarity between items, the more likely they are to group together, unite and ultimately form ONE SINGULAR SPECIES. That singular cannot survive then, as it has absorbed all other species {plant and animal}.
         
         As example: a hydrogen atom.
         Radiate it all you like, it will not clone itself or go through the process of mitosis.
         Place two hydrogen atoms side by side and 99.9999% chance they will bond. That bond {evolution} now forms ONE unit called Helium. The hydrogen no longer exists, as a species, and Helium is now the species. Reverse the process {devolve} and Helium becomes extinct and two hydrogen atoms become a species.
         
         However, the view points:
         nature expanding outward, evolving into many forms from one original
         nature contracting inward, devolving into one original form from many
         nature is interchangeable, swapping out species for other ones.
         
         Now, shall we apply Quantum concepts to the Evolution Theory -or better against Aristotle's Scala? No wait, let's use Lucretius! Even better, to be fair, we will implore Mr Kant alone to explain what I have mentioned above.
         
         James.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            First, your analogy using a Hydrogen atom is totally worthless.  I can make the claim that a chair and a car will not combine even though they are each 100% composed of atoms, but it means nothing at all even though it is true.
            
            Your claim that one species cannot become another or split into two species is interesting, if true.  Your reasoning process is what?  That you have never seen it done and therefore it is impossible?
            
            But you then turn around and state that if excessive mutation occurs the species will disappear, and so it does.  It's replaced by something else, but the original species is gone.  We see that everywhere, too - dinosaurs no longer exist. 
            
            Are you claiming that because a human and a chimpanzee are extremely similar (to what?  98% or some such?) that they will eventually come together and make one species?

            replyreport
            1. 75

               jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               So, that ends this discussion -and consideration by any- concerning the possible validity of Evolution. Why? Because, as you said, the atomic is true. Everything in nature begins and ends at the atomic level {well, more precisely the ultra-subatomic level.} And nowhere does the atomic system show any type or suggestion of evolution. It does, however, show extensive proof for Interchangeability -something that also liquefies the ET.
               
               If the Evolutionary Theory is going to credit itself as valid or even provable, then it must begin at the atomic level working upwards, defining the structure of the atomic fields, sequences of information/development of sugars, proteins, etc that in turn become base genetics and how those atomic units evolve themselves resulting in specie mutations of such magnitude an amoeba can become a redwood forest, regardless of the time-line. A billion billion years of mitosis, radiating light, gene splicing of said amoeba would not result in that tree. Another element, an interbreeding of species must occur for the possibility to even exist. Still, two Hydrogen combine and become extinct in order to permit Helium to come into existence. And unless another atomic force collides with Helium, those two Hydrogen units will never be seen again.
               
               It is more probable and possible to consider:
               Devolution {many becoming one by natural selection/interbreeding} rather than
               Evolution {one becoming many by its own singularity of containing all genetic material for all specie}.
               In short Evolution must prove a claim that every-every possible pattern of genetics and its variations for future mutations existed in that single primordial soup spoon.
               
               Having looked at the quantum side of physics and the S-matrix and several other approaches, cannot see how ET can be proven true. Just the quark flavors alone debunk Evolution. And they are just 1/3 of the collective expressions of a completely structured atom. Once the remaining are confirmed and their parents {smaller units/patterns/vibrations} observed much closer, it will establish even further the credibility of Quantum over Evolution.
               
               But hey, Evolution, like a Theoretical Food Cost, is an astounding idea and makes people think, investigate or explore further. If it has not, and is now considered the authority and establishment of nature, then sadly to its own demise, and those who follow it, has become yet another useless religious expression from the equation side of Theos.
               
               James.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "A billion billion years of mitosis, radiating light, gene splicing of said amoeba would not result in that tree."
                  
                  How many differences are there in the gene structure of an amoeba and a redwood tree?  50?  1,000? 10,000?  What is the probability that in 100 years and 10,000,000 amoebas a cosmic ray will effect one of the changes?  What is the probability that chemicals in the soup the amoeba lives in will effect one such change?  What is the probability that the reproduction (copying) process of an amoeba will make the change? 
                  
                  All of these answers are greater than zero, indicating that the probability of making all 50 or 1,000 or 10,000 changes, in an order that does not destroy the organism, is also above zero.  Your statement that it is zero in a billion billion years is thus patently false.  It is not that low in even one second.
                  
                  Normally, the next statement is that it is non-zero, but is infinitesimally small.  One in 10^50 or 10^1,000,000 or some other unsubstantiated number.  If you want to make such statements they will be much better accepted if hard numbers are used, backed up with experiments and evidence.  It's a matter of credibility, you see.  If you want people to agree with you and believe what you say you must do more than make up information simply because it agrees with your point.  You can't just pick numbers like "zero" from a hat and declare them to be true.
                  
                  Now, I claim the probability to be non-zero (positive) - the technical term is "mutation".  If you doubt that can happen, check out work with fruit flies, pea plants or the hundreds of genetic manipulation businesses around today.  Or do your own experiments, but be sure to submit them to various biology experts through the world for verification if you can "prove" mutation to be impossible.
                  
                  I'm sure you are also quite aware that matter on the subatomic level does NOT behave as matter in the macro world, where DNA strands exist, does.  The laws and forces governing macro sized chemicals and combinations of chemicals are not the same as those governing subatomic particles.  For instance, we see such particles popping into and out of existence - ever heard of a large molecular structure doing the same?  To claim that atomic forces producing changes in atomic particles are the same as those producing chemical reactions is ridiculous. It's like claiming that gravity is the same as the strong nuclear force.  If it were not so the alchemists of years ago would have produced enough gold, through chemical reactions, to flood the world with that element. 
                  
                  Finally, can you tell me why it is that people ignorant of the basics of evolution seem to almost inevitably declare it to be "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" (from the Oxford dictionary for religion?  Just curious - it has nothing to do with the discussion - but I find it fascinating to find that claim so often being made.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Again, my position is not to argue for//against validity of ET.
                     And yes, if I had the time, would do some of those experiments, but, am bogged down 400+ pages deep with other Quantum~Philosophical experiments. So, must bow out gracefully.
                     
                     Oh, my mention about religious does not necessarily imply a deity necessarily, even though the dictionaries foremost answer to the word regards them. My mention as religious, is anything done on a non-practical scale, a thing, or belief system, that is ritualized and accepted as absolute, yet yields no practical application or sequor {follow through}, only more of the same.
                     
                     James.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        If you truly think that evolution is a non practical concept, that it has no practical application, you must not be a farmer.  Or dog breeder, rancher, or doctor.  Or any other occupation that deals with living organisms.  The knowledge and use of the concepts of how evolution works are absolutely necessary to any and all of these.
                        
                        It always boggles my mind when people see and use this knowledge, then turn around and declare that it can't happen; that the follow through into differing species is impossible for some imagined reason.  That evolution cannot cross the invisible, human defined and artificial line that delineates species.  Nature pays no attention to our artificial definitions anywhere else; why would it do so there?

                        replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Ah.  I finally understand (after the fifth or sixth reading) the part about interbreeding.  Somehow the meaning went right over my head and I turned it into something else - my apologies.
            
            You do understand, though, that "interbreeding" is a necessary part of evolution?  That the theory itself requires not only breeding, but "interbreeding" of small, isolated populations?  That it is only the rare, completely benign, mutation that can become part of a species without that?
            
            Blue eyes, for instance, in humans.  The mutation grew throughout the population even though it wasn't small or isolated, because it had no real effect on either the organism or its ability to survive.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, which is why I made the mention of the three view-ports:
               
               nature expanding outward, evolving into many forms from one original
               nature contracting inward, devolving into one original form from many
               nature is interchangeable, swapping out species for other ones.
               
               All they do//could contain mutational parameters.
               But, as said, the likelihood of the three is #2, Devolution, which is actually natural selection at its peek. Uniting species to form a "perfect" cohesive of creatures to mirror those elements of nature required for its existence and sustainability. The flaw is simple reduction of species to a point where all unison occurs and nature dissolves.
               
               One became as many as possible, reduced to few {natural selection}, returning to one.
               This the process of Evolve-Devolve. The variable factor being Interchangeability during this scenario -or perhaps independent of it. This I can better accept than 'traditional' evolutionary proposals. Interchangeability makes sense and follows, almost perfectly, the nature of the atomic world.
               
               James.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I might actually agree with you on Devolution, but for one thing.  Nature isn't static and it isn't the same everywhere.  No organism (until the intelligence of man appeared on the scene) could compete successfully against specialized animals in both arctic and equatorial regions.  Or in both jungle and desert.  Add in that jungle will one day become desert, and animals cannot devolve into one species that will then remain static. 
                  
                  Specialization is necessary for survival, and man has followed that road as well.  He gave up high speed, great vision or hearing, fur coats and all the rest of the things that animals have to specialize in intelligence.  It worked, or at least has so far - our time line is still very, very short and only time will tell if we can remain successful.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In a word WRONG. One needs to look no further than there own hand to see evolution in action. Why do some people have dark skin while others have light skin and why do people from areas farther from the equator have light skin? It seems that darker skin would be beneficial. What possible advantage would have light skin have. The absorption of vitamin D is the answer. When Africans travel north there dark skin does not allow them to absorb enough vitamin D from the sun. Without vitamin D dark skinned people become week and the people born with lighter skin survive and procreate. The result is two peoples with with genetic differences.
      
      And you said it was impossible. You said it was impossible because you can't imagine it on your own. But just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it so. It just mean you can't imagine it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Similarly, you can't just imagine God.
         
         What is the evidence that those African folks got black skin because they wandered in the sun too much? Maybe, they were black from the beginning. You get several types of cat skins, some are black, some white, some grey. But that does not demonstrate that the cat species came from the dog species. And that human beings came into life on this planet from some primordial mushrooms.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Of course I can, and did. I was once a christian. I know how you think. You think if you can't image how this evolution thing works it must not exist. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Look at the whale and look at the hippo. A water cow with nostrils on top of his head. Look at all the fossils of creatures that either no long exist or have changed. Look at the indian elephant and compare it to the African elephant. The dog and the wolf are now genetically different, but not as different as the wolf and fox. Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes and yet they can still reproduce, but mule or offspring can't. All this fits perfectly with the theory of evolution. You may not be able to comprehend evolution, but that doesn't mean it aint so. It just means you don't understand it. Just look at your hand.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               It might be as well that I was once a die-hard Darwinian. You don't know how I think, neither I can predict yours.
               
               You see, if I say the world is bad, some people will start seeing bad everywhere, that's mind's recognition of pattern, it's a powerful tool. A theory gives patterns, and some people start to see them everywhere.
               
               They may be true, they may not be. But the odd is, they will overlook a great deal. (The world is wonderful place, though it has some bad elements. Did I overlook anything there?)
               
               No one has seen Evolution happening. It might be a hoax. They evidence is in fossils. It might be as well they are fake or misunderstood. The life that we see around us may have been always the same. It may be your delusion that you think they evolve or something like that. It's unhealthy to give unmerited respect, to both Charles Darwin and his theory.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Why would you think it's a hoax? Who would deliberately try to deceive us will all these fossils and evidence, like skin color which you have not addressed? Your only evidence against evolution is a 2000 year old book. That book may be wrong. Let's look at the evidence and see who is wrong. What is the most likely scenario? The bible has been proven wrong on many things, mostly because it was written by people who didn't have our knowledge. It wasn't long ago that people thought the everything revolved around the earth. No human has ever been dated past 200 000 years ago and no dinosaur has ever been dated within the last 65.5 million years. Perhaps someone is deceiving us with all the fossils? You can imagine someone deceiving us with all these fossils, but you can imagine evolution?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     You seem to have an uncanny belief that I am religious.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        You appear to have an agenda. I for one have never seen a person who denies evolution that was not Religious.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Does that prove that I am religious?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              No, just a creationist.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Florida Crackerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Prove I am a creationist

                                 replyreport
                        2. 79

                           Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Trolls often do

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Florida Crackerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              You're the glaring example,

                              replyreport
               2. 60

                  twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "No one has seen Evolution happening." True, but irrelevant. We know lots of things happened without witnessing them. The US Civil War, for example. How do we know it took place? We have mountains of evidence: eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, etc., across many disciplines, and they are all in accord. The details of some events are debatable, such as culpability of the commanders of Andersonville prison (did they deliberately starve Union prisoners, or did they not even have enough food for themselves?), or why McClellan didn't pursue Lee in Virginia, but no one disputes the basic facts of the war.
                  
                  Same thing with evolution. There is some disagreement on some of the details. For example, the late Stephen Jay Gould put forth the idea of punctuated equilibrium, where species arrive relatively quickly, whereas others, led by Richard Dawkins, argue that speciation took place very gradually. But, even though there is disagreement on some of the details, none of them are debating whether evolution took place.
                  
                  Don't you have any better arguments than "no one saw it"? This is just too easy!

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Florida Crackerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     "We know lots of things happened without witnessing them. The US Civil War, for example. How do we know it took place? "
                     
                     -There are photographs that suggest that there was that civil war that happened. You can prove that, in a way. Otherwise, you have written records, which are as good as the holy bible. Can you bank on it?
                     
                     Eyewitness? OMG I have eyewitness of who saw a ghost that day. Isn't that scary, lol.
                     
                     
                     "Don't you have any better arguments than "no one saw it"? This is just too easy!"
                     
                     - Apply that  argument on the *concept* of God. , you will have better ideas, LOL!
                     
                     
                     "We know lots of things happened without witnessing them. God, for example. How do we know it exists? We have mountains of evidence: eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, etc., across many disciplines, and they are all in accord."

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Physical evidence a god exists? I'd like to see that.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           That you could write that argument is one of them, LOL!

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              No it's evidence to the contrary. You see the Christian God wants us to believe in God without evidence or even if evidence of the contrary exists.
                              
                              twosheds was not struck by lightning for making that comment.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 I was joking on that. Well, there is no physical evidence that proves the existence of God, we all know. But the possibility remains. And the possibility also remains that *some* folks intuitively know that such a thing exists. They just can't provide evidence.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Some folks (think) they know God exists. To a schizophrenic the voices in his head are real, it does not mean the voices exist outside his head.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       If someone is lying to you, and you detect that he is indeed lying, that does not mean the voices exist outside your head. Meanwhile, that liar robs all of your money and you still remain engaged trying to prove that.
                                       
                                       When Newton discovered gravity, it was a mere intuition that ran through his head. I mean, Isaac Newton was schizophrenic, lol

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          When did I say Newton had schizophrenia? I have no idea what you are talking about. I only brought up the schizophrenic because the voices or people they see only appear in there own brain, just like the religious who feel they have a connection with God. I'm not saying all religious are schizophrenic, but what we feel is happening may not be happening.

                                          report
                                       2. 58

                                          A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          I'm 'detecting' something there.

                                          report
                                    2. 61

                                       William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       I see, you love your money. I was talking about intuition, and you brought this issue of schizophrenia. The point remains...

                                       report
                                    3. 61

                                       William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       "I'm 'detecting' something there."
                                       
                                       @A Troubled Man - That's YOUR intuition

                                       report
                                 2. 58

                                    A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    You can replace the word "God" with anything conjured from the imagination and your statement is equally valid.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Stop using your old cliché, mam. If it's imaginary, then they can not prove that. What I am pointing at is the people who realize the existence of something, intuitively. When Newton discovered gravity, it was a mere intuition that ran through his head. He added the evidence and made the difference. If he didn't, you could as well call him delusional, lol.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Correct, he added the evidence. Evidence. What happens in our own heads is meaningless without evidence. When someone says they know God exists without evidence, they don't "know", they "think" God exists.

                                          report
                                       2. 58

                                          A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Yes, something they can't prove, but can only imagine.
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          Please stop referring to those of which you have little understanding. Thanks.

                                          report
                                          1. 77

                                             calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             Take your own advice.

                                             report
                                             1. 58

                                                A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                Please explain.

                                                report
                                                1. 77

                                                   calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   I don't feel an explanation is necessary. I feel that you have offered advice which would be very useful for yourself.

                                                   report
                                    2. 61

                                       William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       The problem is that Newton *intuitively* discovered that gravity exists. He needed the evidence just to convince others.

                                       report
         2. 0

            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Look, the first people were Africans and dark skin evolved in Africa to protect them from sun damage. When those dark skinned people travel into Europe the need for lighter skin rose and evolved. Making Europeans with lighter skin than Africans. The people of the far north evolved with shorter limbs to help them fight frost bite. There is much evidence for evolution in humans today. You just need to look for it.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               It maybe that the dark-skinned folks were always dark-skinned, and that the white-skinned were always white. It might be the case that the dark-skinned remained in Africa, while the whites migrated to climates that suited their physiology. Or that the whites were originated into Europe or elsewhere.
               
               Nowadays, we do migrate to cultures and economies that suit us. Same thing, only the level has changed.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  All evidence to date suggests humans originated in Africa. Do you have some other evidence you care to show.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     A good detective never makes his mind or suspects anyone, based on a few clues that point to a certain person. He continues his investigation. Very often, the criminal turns out to be someone else.
                     
                     We may tomorrow as well find some human fossil which predates the African one, Depends.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        A good detective never suspects anyone? What? A good detective suspects everyone. Looks at all the evidence and makes up his mind. If detectives never make up there minds no one would ever be charged. When all evidence suggest that Dinosaurs walked the earth 70 million years ago and you evidence suggests otherwise we can safely say Dinosaurs walked the earth 70 million years ago. When ALL evidence suggests evolution and we have no evidence to suggest otherwise we can safely say evolution is a sound theory. Unless of course you have some evidence to suggest otherwise?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           What I meant was, that a good detective looks for compelling evidence, he doesn't make up his mind who might be the criminal just when he is getting the clues.
                           
                           Did you see the Dinosaurs' evidence yourself? Or did you just read that such evidence exists? And even if I suppose that exists, it doesn't say that we will not find an evidence that predates the existing one. Or maybe, those evidences have long ago perished, due to natural causes.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Ah, you just refuted your own argument: "a good detective looks for compelling evidence," A detective hasn't witnessed the crime, he has to piece the crime together using evidence: physical, eyewitness testimony, etc., until he can build a compelling case that can convince a jury, who also did not witness it.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Florida Crackerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 That's why SOME need to find evidence for Creator God.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, I have seen evidence of Dinosaurs myself. The evidence is overwhelming. Go to a museum.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Oh, come on, you know those dinosaurs are just a trick that the devil has played on us so that we believe this evolution nonsense.  Those old bones are nothing but plastic!! :0)

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    What's funny about your statement is that some think it's a true statement.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       Florida Crackerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       

                                       report
                                    2. 95

                                       wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       That's not funny - just sad.  Besides, everyone knows, deep down, that the devil put them there to confuse us.

                                       report
                              2. 0

                                 EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Na mate, the Natural History Museum made all those dinosaur skellingtons out of polymer clay, innit?

                                 replyreport
            2. 60

               twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I don't think there was a need for lighter skin, I think it was just that lighter skin wasn't as much of a liability, though I could be wrong.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You are wrong. Dark skin needs much more sunlight to produce Vitamin D therefor lighter skin evolved in Northern areas. The farther one goes north generally the lighter skin people have.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I had wondered about that.

                     replyreport
9. 61

   Magic Alexposted 11 years ago

   Ooookay. This seems less like discourse, and more like, "YOU'RE WROOOOOOOOOONG!" I'm out.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      God is in kitchenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      See ya

      replyreport
10. 61

    Paul Wingertposted 11 years ago

    It's hilarious to see some people running around thinking that the earth and universe is about 6000 years old and they continue to fill their gas tanks with fossil fuel! The Bible is NOT a science book and it's too bad that there's people who think it is. If I want to learn something about science or evolution, I'd read a book written on science or evolution written by an expert in that particular field. No way would I take a story of creation literally written by ancient Biblical writers who thought the earth was flat, didn't know what an atom was or had no idea where the sun went every evening. People who post these anti-evolution threads come across as poorly educated and brainwashed. Anything they post can be disproved without much hard research. But if they insist on making a fool of themselves, people like me have a great sense of humor.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Florida Crackerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks for putting your whole heart, because I was just about to make the mistake to assume that you are an intellectual,   LOLOLOLOL

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Ok banned-from-HubPages user.

          replyreport
          1. 79

             Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Again... can't wait to see the next incarnation... actually, I can wait...

             replyreport
11. 54

    ocbillposted 11 years ago

    Great topic:
    
    @Paul, "If I want to learn something about science or evolution, I'd read a book written on science or evolution written by an expert in that particular field" .
    
    You need to specify the self-proclaimed experts about Earth's properties and/or planets in this solar system. They are still learning about Mars, have never visited Jupiter. We know more about the moon's surface than we do about 20 to 30,000 feet on the ocean's floor. We can't even transfer out of fossil fuel cars to something better. And let's not blame this on politicians.
    
    Experts? We are still finding new species on our planet. Archaeologists have recently confirmed that most dinosaurs you learned about 30 years ago had fur. Yes, a T-Rex, Velociraptor and some more were not as depicted in the Jurassic Park movie.
    Experts? Even's Isaac Newton's Law is coming under scrutiny on inertia.
    
    There was a great documentary about evolution on the history channel and there's also some recent conclusive scientific facts (dna strands) that we did not evolve from ape, monkey, neanderthal, cro-magnun, etc. - search for Lloyd Pye on Youtube (Everything You Know is Wrong).
    Moreover, there have been some other evolution findings by other anthropologists to confirm it too.
    
    I understand that if someone truly has a belief on one specific way they cannot be objective. Well, all angles were looked at to try and fit it in with the "theory" of evolution and the scientific community but they all failed. Check it out. Yes, conspiracy theorists love this stuff.

    replyreport
12. 55

    Wruyposted 11 years ago

    Lol, that would be adaptaion as far as the flu goes. There is overwhelming evidence that evolution is garbage. So Evolution is such a great science it says there was nothing, or there was a little bit of something that well, frankly we have know idea where that stuff came from, but lets ignore that for now. Anyway that stuff exploded to make everything in the universe. So this tiny little thing expanded. Now Earth was lucky. It just happened to be the right distance from the Sun and the molten lava and rocks that were churning and forming the face of the Earth somehow gave birth to germs. So from Rocks we get the single celled organism? This starts to multiply its cells and eventually gave birth to a fish. Not many fish just one. So from that one fish that maybe asexually reproduced to make more that didn't die in the swirling mess of lava and super heated water and ash filled sky. Those fish made more and eventually life in the water for that one kind of fish was not good enough so it decided to move to land. So one day popping its legs out it took to land and became a lizard. Not many kinds but just one. So there might have been many of the same kind so they could reproduce. so they are popping little baby lizards out and see the sky and get bored with the ground so hey lets fly. Spread their wings.... do you get what I am saying. Evolution is just bad science. Look up creationism. There is a lot of evidence "real evidence" supporting the theory that the Earth is only about 7000 years old. If you really believe carbon dating then do some research on that. They took some things that could not have been billions of years old and through carbon dating found that it was. And Kangaroo your flat out wrong. Do as loan star said and research. There is a body of water that every year or so dries out due to a strong wind. The raising of Moses' hands was his testament of faith that he knew God would save the people.  Seriously though I am not tryin to sound like I know everything cause I got alot to learn so I want you to do the studying on Creationism. Its cool to see what real scientists have discovered. (not to say that evolutionary scientists are not real). THough if they were real scientists I guess they would be open to other theories other than their own and not be blacklisting all those who stand for creationism from jobs were they could teach their point of view. just saying.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Oh dear, a 7000 year old universe. I'm not sure how we can see those stars because some those stars are millions of light years away. Meaning that light takes millions of years to get from the stars to us. How could that light possibly get to us in 7000 years.

       replyreport
13. 61

    thelizposted 11 years ago

    Wruy, I like it a lot.

    replyreport
14. 61

    Rebecca Wendtposted 11 years ago

    theliz, I can appreciate your comment.  I agree with your comment about none of us knows any more than we are suppossed to at this time in history.  I agree that each generation gains greater knowledge as time passes, which often leads us to change beliefs, as in the monthly cycles example.  There are however, a few passages in scripture that speak to helping me decide which is the truth.  The most important for me is Hebrews 11:1,3  which state that we believe by faith that the universe was formed at God's command.  Faith by definition, according to Dictionary.com, is a belief that is not based on proof.  I also rely on Proverbs 3 that reminds me not to rely on my own eyes or to lean on my own understanding, elsewhere it states that God's ways are beyond my comprehension.  Job 36 and 37 also speak to this, saying that Gods ways are beyond our understanding.  I can, however, believe that once God created the universe things have evolved to be better adapted to certain environments for survival.  I'm not trying to be confrontational.    But just want to share with you what I know to be true.  Good luck with your quest for truth, as I believe we are all always seeking a greater truth.

    replyreport
15. 61

    William Curry3posted 11 years ago

    Great discussion...
    
    
    I like the way people crashed each other. One note. Science is done by people. It's unhealthy to think that they will do no wrong or make mistakes while understanding the truth of a certain subject. And, there is no guarantee that they will not deliberately tell lies and twist facts for their own benefits, or just for fun...
    
    Ir's a mistake to assume that a scientist *must* be an honest person.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You're absolutely right, and that's why there's a peer-review process. Remember cold fusion?

       replyreport
       1. 61

          William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That is still a fairly human affair.

          replyreport
    2. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, notice how the work of scientists deliberately and dishonestly created the computer and internet connection you use? Not to mention so much more that most take advantage of every day, but somehow just can't give credit where credit is due.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          William Curry3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          

          replyreport
16. 56

    ftclickposted 11 years ago

    Ir's a mistake to assume that a scientist *must* be an honest person.
    
    So true. You got this scientist by the you know what so he says what govt. wants him to say.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       No the military says what the government tells them too, not scientist.

       replyreport
17. 59

    Beer Gogglesposted 11 years ago

    If we had to rely on a god, a space man or whatever, then where would they come from? Who created the creator? In turn, who created the creator of the creator etc etc?
    
    If every atom in a rain drop was a grain of sand, you could fill a beaxh with them.
    If the star that we call the sun was a grain of sand, the stars in our galaxy would fill a beach.
    If our galaxy were a grain of sand, the galaxies in the known universe would fill a beach.
    
    Those few atoms on that school periodic table have been smashing about all over this universe for a very very very long time. Many atoms have had many meetings.
    This planet alonein its tiny size and relative infancy has two seperatate life forms made from these meetings, animal and plant.
    I think we need to be quite unimaginative to put this down to a creator.
    As for evolution. That can be seen with the naked eye. Our kids are taller than us as we are than our forefathers. Look at the doors and ceilings of old house. Very low.

    replyreport
18. 59

    Beer Gogglesposted 11 years ago

    If we had to rely on a god, a space man or whatever, then where would they come from? Who created the creator? In turn, who created the creator of the creator etc etc?
    
    If every atom in a rain drop was a grain of sand, you could fill a beaxh with them.
    If the star that we call the sun was a grain of sand, the stars in our galaxy would fill a beach.
    If our galaxy were a grain of sand, the galaxies in the known universe would fill a beach.
    
    Those few atoms on that school periodic table have been smashing about all over this universe for a very very very long time. Many atoms have had many meetings.
    This planet alonein its tiny size and relative infancy has two seperatate life forms made from these meetings, animal and plant.
    I think we need to be quite unimaginative to put this down to a creator.
    As for evolution. That can be seen with the naked eye. Our kids are taller than us as we are than our forefathers. Look at the doors and ceilings of old house. Very low.

    replyreport