Zeus'es lightning bolt? JK.
I doubt that it was a lightning bolt. More likely a random accumalation of static charge on a much smaller scale. A spark not an OMG IM BURNING!

Evolution is a scientific fact which has been proven with leagues of evidence. In fact, modern biology is based on evolution. The only reason one would not "believe" in evolution, is if they are uneducated, and ignorant. Many people choose to disbelieve in evolution dispite the evidence, because their holy texts are contradicted by it. Regardless...

Evolution makes predictions about the rate of DNA variance over time, that have proven to be accurate. It works with the geological timescale as well, and compares to every known branch of science, and is not contradicted by anything. Evolution via natural selection is an incredibly interesting topic, and I've heard much about it!

There are over 100 billion billion planets in the galaxy, and all that needs to happen for evolution to take place, is natural selection. As soon as that first self-replicating DNA molecule was formed, that was all evolution needed to occur. The chances of the molecule forming may only be one in a billion, but even with those extremely tough odds, the event would still happen over one billion times, according to probability. The fact that genes do not always copy perfectly, means that gradually, over many generations, different traits emerge, some of which are good, and others are bad. If one trait helps an organism survive, then it will be passed on, and the future generations will carry that gene. This is how evolution works.

A new species emerges when the environment changes. For instance, you can see an example of this, as the northern rabbits are often white, while the rabbits found south are brown, because white fur helps rabbits survive by blending in with the snow. This is called micro-evolution. Micro evolution is when the traits change, however the species can still reproduce with eachother. Over long periods of time, the species can no longer mate together producing fertile offspring. If you try to breed a human and a monkey, they cannot reproduce, so you have to classify them as different species. When asians and black humans reproduce, although they have some different traits, they still make a fertile baby, therefore both are the same species. There are a lot of great videos on evolution on youtube and I recommend checking them out.

Google search Dr.Dino.com

There is a 250 grand reward for evidence supporting evolution. Nothing has ever been proven because evolution can not be tested, which is why it doesn't qualify as a theory vclick this linkv

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:theory&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
The test used basic elements and compounds needed to create amino acids. Though, during the test there was no presence of NH4, ammonium. This is because ammonium is broken down by ultra violet light, so this test was unrealistic to start with due to the fact of a missing compound that would be present in any primordial soup.

The test failed, they created a single amino acid, and a copy of this acid backwards. So in essence, one amino acid. I believe you need about 20 amino different amino acids to create a cell, maybe moar i forgot.

The part about the acids forming a cell has yet to be explained logically.
About there being different 'kinds', you could just say that animals of the same species can reproduce successfully ignoring limitations of physical size.

The size comment meaning you can't breed a small lizard with a komodo dragon, but they are still lizards.

Now a process for evolution occuring AT ALL will destroy any need for Jesus dieing on the cross, because it displays death before sin. That's where the problem starts, not the time needed for the 'Theory of Evolution' to be accepted.
Well here's a link to a long video that shows some very interesting things on the topic. I can summarize it if you'd like, but you'd be better off watching this:

P.S. I have not scanned it for viruses.. though i doubt there are any at all.

http://arrivalofthefittest.com/downloads/CSE/videos/Creation%20Science%20Evangelism%20-%20Kent%20Hovind%20-%202007%20Seminar%206%20-%20The%20Hovind%20Theory.avi

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 19 2008, 3:53 pm by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Combining FOUR posts into one

Oh gee, so he can completely rape terms, ask for random crap, and then set himself in a position to invalidate by technicality and claims to the $250,000, and it means anything that noone's succeeded? I doubt anyone of significant authority has even tried, knowing what his requirements are.
"1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). "
The first two are completely irrelevant to the matter of organic evolution, the third is impossible to "prove" as all that can be done is demonstrate its possibility, the fourth is an extension of that, and the fifth is an arbitrarily defined, obscenely long process which can be inferred by heaploads of evidence but cannot be directly observed within any practicality.
"# a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ..."
Evolution.
"(sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena; (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory"
Evolution.
"An explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3"
Evolution.
"A set of propositions which summarise, organise, and explain a variety of known facts, eg Darwin's theory of evolution. Theories are intended to logically summarise information and to give a framework for the generation of new tests and ideas on the topic.
www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sp/teaching/glossary.shtml"
Will I say it this time? ... I guess so.
Evolution right here.

I'd go further, but I'm being redundant.
"The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). 1
"The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2)." 2
"a mixture of water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) andhydrogen (H2) " 3
The matter is, it's a step. We haven't a means of knowing the exact chemical and physical situation of the Earth pre-life, so we can only guess and come to partial conclusions - the same as we ever do with science. The lack of complete success says nothing other than that, if we are to take our theory on the origin of life ( not the process of it - evolution - anyways, which is a different matter ) to be true, then our understanding of the conditions at the time are incomplete. The presence of some degree of success implies that we are quite possibly on the right track.
uh, ya? That's the definition of species anyways? Although I don't know where you started going on about "ignoring limitations of physical size."
Depending on your religious view.
According to plenty of hypothetical others, the event would still be significant - and according to a bunch of others, we wouldn't "need" such a thing to happen anyways.
"My book says this had to happen."
"My book proposes this theory of life with heaps of evidence."
"That contradicts that this event had to occur."
"So?"

Instead of pulling sources from no where to defend your argument, why don't you do it yourself?

Well, you can easily observe 'evolution' if you take for example, an apple tree. You get your daily same apples because they don't plant the seeds in their soil with the apples they harvest- but rather they take the stem and replant it to grow the same kind- and not a different one. If you don't get it, there has already been quite a difference in genetics if theres already a change in taste and (how an apple might look like.). Voila, evolution. But we like our food as it is.

For the people who voted "No" can you give a reason besides "my religion says so".
I voted yes. because we can see life adapt to their surroundings.

They haven't gotten the money because there is no proof that is valid.


Hold on, you seem to be talking about the big bang theory. Well the big bang theory, as far as I understand, is an idea that all the matter in the universe becomes compacted together into one tiny, super large black hole. And this thing is spinning very fast. Then, I'm not sure why, this mass expands into what we call our universe. There are some major problems with this theory that I'll try to show to you:

The first thing wrong with this is that if the this mass expanded, then all the matter in the universe would be evenly spaced apart. But as anyone can see by looking through a telescope, there are very vast amounts of blank space and many clustered areas of many stars and planets. Also almost every planet (and star) would be composed of nearly the same ratios of matter.

The mathematical equation for Boyle's law is:
PV = k

where:
P denotes the pressure of the system.
V is the volume of the gas.
k is a constant value representative of the pressure and volume of the system.

This means that unless there is a strong outside force then matter CAN NOT form a liquid from a cloud of gas. The reason we have liquid on earth, is the earth's gravity. The gravity pulls all the surrounding gas together, and when water for example, is at the right altitude and temperature it sits in a state known as a liquid. This is because the matter is being pressed by pressure hard enough so that the atoms gravity holds them together, but they are not near solidly connected. Imagine a bag of marbles in your hand, you can wiggle the bag and inside the marbles freely move about to an extent, similar to a liquid. When you tighten the bag so there is no slack, and jiggle it around it feels solid, and the marbles do not move. This represents matter on our planet changing from solids to liquids.

So in an environment with almost NO pressure AT ALL, matter can not be pressed (dust) into a solid or a liquid because the atoms and molecules will simply bounce off of each other and keep going, their gravity alone isn't enough to form a solid clump of matter.


My biology teachers have failed to explain this process, if you can I would like you to.


Heap loads of evidence? If you had heap loads i'm sure i would believe in evolution, but all evolution has is ideas that can not be tested. Why would anyone believe something that can not be tested, and was created by humans. The last time I checked humans weren't perfect. So why would an idea like Evolution be considered true, or right? If something created by something flawed is made, then the product will surely be flawed. What perfect has ever come from a flawed producer?


Well there has never been any experiment that leads logically in favor of evolution. Only ideas and conjectures created and carefully protected by the government. Evolution is more a religion than a theory.


Im very sorry, but the test had ammonia, not ammonium, but it lacked the presence of ultra violet light, which is an unrealistic property of the test. According to the Evolution, plants that were developing early on created almost all of the oxygen that is present in our atmosphere today. So back then, there would be no ozone (O3) to block out UV, which would destroy any ammonia.


So you don't know the composition, btw ammonia is completely necessary to create any amino acid, you don't know how matter formed life, and you have only partial conclusions based off of ideas thought up by flawed people. It seems to be that you all don't 'know' anything about your own ideas, I don't mean to be mean but that's how i interpreted your words.


No, depending on what the bible says.



Yeah, I hate religion, so that's not what I'm saying. religion is a set of rules and or rituals that need to be carried out in order to get to heaven. Well Jesus *edit*: did not *edit* come to earth to establish a religion, he came to save us from our sins, and allow us to have a relationship with God.


Uhm, it's still an apple after it is re planted.


That would take a long time, and I don't have the time right now. Sry, sometime I'll write a summary..

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 19 2008, 4:02 am by CecilSunkure.

Your question is worded incorrectly. You don't "believe" in evolution, just like you wouldn't "believe" in gravity or "believe" in technology.

You either accept science or you don't. If you do, welcome to the modern age. If you don't, go live like Amish do. Seriously. Knowledge is an "all or nothing" thing, either you want to learn everything or you want to learn nothing, you can't selectively decide that you aren't going to accept something because it conflicts with your belief of the invisible man in the sky. Science is about finding answers, even if some people don't like where the answers take them.

Don't use your funny wording to make it appear like evolution is on the same unconfirmed and unprovable status that religion has.

That tells how credible you really are.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 19 2008, 10:30 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: English

Accepting Science? Oh I accept science, and I used it to understand how our world was made probably more than you

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Yeah, what about the operation of general laws, e.g. Boyles Gas Law which will NOT let a star or planet form from a cloud of dust in a vacuum. It's impossible, and many evolutionists accept this fact, and just say that all stars were created during the big bang, instead of after, mainly because of this law of physics. We see stars supernova all the time, but noone has ever seen a star been created, ever. No evolutionist knows how they got there. Yes people claim to have found a star baby.. its just a star behind a nebula, end of discussion. Also if all the stars were created during the big bang, then all stars would HAVE to be spinning in the same direction. According to physics, when a spinning object breaks into multiple pieces, all pieces spin in the same direction because the inside of the object is spinning slower than the outside. But Venus, Mercury, and Pluto spin backwards than the rest of the planets. Some entire galaxies spin backwards. The only plausable explanation for planets spinning backwards would be: If two planets were touching, and something pushed the middle, both would veer off in opposing directions. But, planets touching or near to it, and the collisions are both ridiculous ideas for our solar system. Also in every galaxy im aware of, the closer you get to the black hole, the faster the planets fly, which makes sense. This means the outside planets are spinning slower. But, for example, our galaxy still has its rings, with the ends of the rings spinning slower than the middle. This means our galaxy CAN NOT be over ten thousand years, or the rings would be slurred into a mass of planets by now. Also I've already stated that there have been no tests completed that point logically towards favoring the evolutionary view. If there were, I would probably be more accepting of the idea. There's also a big problem for evolution: Comets. Comets can not last longer than I believe ten thousand years, the deteriorate. So evolutionists came up with the idea that an undetectable cluster, or shell, of comets lies outside of our solar system, and every now and then swoops in from along it's orbital path and deposits a few comets that we see today. There is no evidence for this cluster called the Oort cloud, and nothing to back up the idea. It was made purely as protection for Evolution.

So with you attacking my religion.. I don't have one. I hate religion. Catholicism, Buddhism, you name it, it's flawed. So saying I use 'religion' to hide behind, or for backing up my answers your wrong.

And no, knowledge is not all or nothing. If you think you know something it will effect you as if it were true. It's amazing what we 'knew' back before the Americas were exploited, it's amazing how we knew the earth was at the center of the universe, it's amazing that you know evolution is true, just because of the amount of people who believe in it. Do you know how many people thought that the gods were the cause of lighting, that the earth was flat? Just about everyone. And how many people were wrong on those aspects? Just about everyone. Either there is a god, or there isn't, for me one of them has an pre accepted and unsupported inference, but for you all; both should be frightening. I try not to be against one thing or another, and be for what is truth. Pro truth, anti error.

And as for knowledge i have some questions for you. How do you know matter formed life without God? How do you know species change over time? How do you know that the big bang theory is plausible? I don't use fancy words to hide behind fallacies intentionally or put evolution on an unconfirmed status. The thing is, evolution IS unconfirmed! if you have a contradiction found in what I say I'll straighten it out, but please don't make random statements that attack me personally to disprove my words.



No, I want to do a good job on writing the thing. If your impatient watch the video I posted, if not, wait.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2008, 1:18 am by CecilSunkure.

There are statistics on how Humans have gotten physically taller and higher IQ then those of the past.
And also the fact because many new species simply exist here in the modern world where as no proof of the current species existing dating back to the Triassic timeline huh? Wait so how did monkeys come to Earth. From a space ship by super advanced aliens as you say? We could believe that.

I stopped reading there. It's nice how you make a reply 3 times longer than mine when I actually wasn't directly speaking to you, and you start it all off with an insult. I don't know what your agenda is and I frankly don't care, never start off with a statement attacking the person making the argument, only attack the argument, because I know the rest of whatever you said is probably something I'd regret reading and a huge waste of my time better spent doing something else.

The only kind of person I can think of who starts their argument to a complete stranger with "I'm smarter than you" has to be a complete douche. God bless you, for whatever god you believe or don't believe in.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2008, 5:51 am by Yoshi.

Good God, you flip-flop more than John Kerry.


Comets easily live over ten thousand years, they're just frozen and when they fall in they lose some mass, and continue along an elongated trajectory that takes thousands of years or decades to return to the inner system. You say things like the Oort Cloud are myth, despite the evidence of thousands of comets pouring into the inner system each year, the gravitational effects on the planets, and the few large comets we've observed out there via telescope.

On the fact of a star being created, no we've never seen one go along the full process of being created, perhaps because it takes a few MILLION years? Consider this: if I give you a bunch of slides of cell mitosis, put them in logical order, but lack a video, do cells not divide?

What rings are you referring to in the galaxy?

The rest of your argument doesn't hold any ground all either.

On your whole physics/space argument, it's the most ludicrous thing that's been posted here. I'm an Astrophysicist, are your argument really doesn't make any sense or follow and logical reasoning.

I meant from one species to another. The dinosuars suffocated to death after the flood.. this is all covered in the video I posted.


Believing in the Bible and accepting Jesus isn't a religion. Jesus never spoke of following him being the best religion, or a religion at all.


I looked up more info on comets and they can't orbit the sun more than 200 times, about 20,000 yrs maximum. I've never heard of these comets pouring in from the Oort cloud as evidence.


Do you understand how water boils? I posted in another post an explanation of boyles gas law that shows that stars cannot from in space from dust, no matter how long the dust sits there. Also I only see stars, I don't see stars being created, like a slide show can show me.



The arms of the galaxy, not rings, I meant arms.


Which part, the part about spinning objects, or boyle's gas law? I can try to explain it in a different way if you don't understand something.

For the part about spinning objects, all objects in the universe would need to be spinning in the same direction in order for the big bang theory to be accurate because of boyle's gas law, and the defition of a liquid. The only explanation for planets like Venus to be spinning the wrong way, would be if you lined up two planets so they are close to touching, and hit the middle of both of them, then both planets would veer off and spin in opposing directions, one clockwise and one counterclockwise. But with our solar system, there are no collision marks of that scale on Venus.


It wasn't meant as an insult, just a guess.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 20 2008, 8:22 am by CecilSunkure.

Isn't it the same thing? One species to another or a species of microscopic life to mammals? Or if not at all- how did life even take place?

On the first part: It was not "dust" that came out of the big bang, it was an extremely hot plasma. I'm sure you know that particles in hot gases move randomly, which thus created inequalities in the density of the plasma. Even if these inequalities lasted for trillionths of a second, it was enough for anti-matter and matter to collide and create further inequality. Your argument, I'm afraid, doesn't hold any water, boiling or otherwise.

On the second part: How do you tell someone you're a lot smarter then them (hence them being stupider than you) without it being construed as an insult? You can't. It was an insult.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 21 2008, 12:18 am by SilentAlfa.

All atom collisions have perfectly elastic collisions, this means when two atoms collide, no energy is lost. So If all this matter was inside of this black hole, under the pressure it is in, there will be VERY little inequalities in the composition, and as this expanded, the atoms would all stay about the same distance away due to pressure until they had enough space to move freely. Due to the fact of perfectly elastic collisions, all matter will be driven away from each other until the big bang expanded enough to release all pressure. Hot gas atoms, or molecules, would never have enough of a gravitational pull to hold together, every atom would move freely on its own. And since there is no outside pressure pressing on these atoms, they could NOT form a liquid and condense. Now on earth, we have a lot of gravity, and a lot of pressure. So it is possible to have groups of atoms in solids, liquids, and gases.

Saying my argument doesn't hold up is meaningless, proving my argument doesn't hold up is very different.

About the insult, I thought he was talking directly to me, so I answered him and didn't intentionally offend him. If he takes it as an insult so be it, it was his choice.

Confusingly, you mention atom collisions and molecules. There were no atoms or molecules in the initial expansion, there were particles below even electrons or protons. And you seem to think I was talking about conditions within what was prior to the big bang. As I stated, I was talking about the plasma coming out of the big bang. Being that the anti-particles and particles destroyed each other in collisions and more matter than anti-matter was created, and that particles with extreme amounts of energy tend to move randomly, we have an uneven distribution of observable matter.

Hm, I was planning on quoting people and making an argument, but it looks like there are three things going on at once here.

First thing, the theory of evolution seems to have been split in two, which is fine, it really has two parts, one is an assumption, the other is as close to a scientific fact as you can get without going back in time. The latter is the fact that life forms evolve from lesser life forms. If you don't believe that life can evolve, then you need to look at some credible sources or put down your bible and open a scientific journal. Right now even the most avid dualist or religious debaters use intelligent design instead of creationism, because intelligent design allows for the evolution, where creationism doesn't. The only debate you'll find against the evolutionary process will occur in internet forums with a bunch of high schoolers who either think they've cracked some conspiracy theory or are part of one of a fundamentalist religious group.

The following is in quote form because it doesn't really apply to my argument at all, it's just a thing about universe formation, and I'm pretty sure all the formulas were taught back in high school physics so it shouldn't be too tough to understand it.

Anyways, that aside, the interesting question is how did earth make life? Science has shown that there were the right building blocks for cells, but so far we haven't be able to prove whether or not it's possible for a living cell to come out of the primordial soup. Lots of Empiricists will tell you that the fact that life did in fact come in to being proves that a cell was randomly formed, but this is not proper logic, and never will be. (It's called affirming the consequent, first year philosophy course stuff, and it's a fallacy to use it) Anyways, the two explanations on the table would be firstly that random electric energy and molecules forming a perfect cell, suddenly able to propagate itself, feed off of it's surroundings, and practice survival of the fittest, this seems kind of like a stretch, I mean believing that such a perfectly designed life machine just popped out of some goo is almost as dumb as believing that a god made a man, ripped his rib out, and then made it in to a woman. The second idea is that some mystical force of consciousness (or some old bearded god guy, whatever floats your boat) pushed life along and somehow influenced the primordial sludge to evolve in to a race of beings capable of holding consciousness and thinking and all that. This one seems kind of dumb too. Well, there's where I'm stuck, both options just seem too ridiculous to pursue any further, normally I'd go with the first one, but recent theories in quantum physics and string theory are almost at the point where they support intelligent design, which makes the whole deal even more confusing.