Missing link found:Creationists choke on more evolution cack

[Lohrno]

That site makes the case for 'intelligent design' using many fallacies. The one that you are describing there relies on one fallacy - it doesn't take into account the millions of years that this happened over.

Say you had a 0.001% chance of something happening in any given second. Now I bet my statistics are probably way off, but lets see...in any given day, there are 60(60 seconds in a minute)*60(60 minutes in an hour)*24 seconds = 8.64% of said event happening that day. *7 = 60.48 chance of said event that week, and a 3153.6% chance of that happening in a year.

IE: It will probably happen 30 times that year.

So when you are talking about millions of years that "almost zero chance" does add up....

So...just hypothetically -

Say that any given year in some time period, there is a 0.000001% chance of abiogenesis.

Over 1 million years, there is a 1% chance, over 10 a 10%...

Now there are millions of planets in the universe out there with the same characteristics as ours...

[noel]

I approve of this thread.

[Voronwë]

This topic has me surfing and researching. I thought this was a good read.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

i'm gonna go out on a limb and bet the author of this has no source he can site.

also, this excerpt contains a common rhetorical device found in misleading statements. Stating a faulty premise as a fact.

In this case, "even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. "

i've never heard this statment before. I have a BS in Biology. I have a MS in Biology. I did a fair amount of work towards a PhD in a Biological discipline.

this is simply an argument made by either someone who does not understand what they are writing about (probably the case since it is incongruous to understand biology and be a creationist) or somebody intentionally trying to mislead his audience, or likely both.

--

It is an unresolved question in biology as to exactly how organic molecules became organized into self-propagating complexes of molecules that eventually led to the most basic "cell" that would resemble a living organism as we know it today.

That is completely acknowledged in science. But because we cannot say with absolute certainty what happened at every single turn, does not mean that evolution didn't happen.

There is a lot of work done on the transition from non-living organic material to "life". It is extremely interesting. One important intermediary is RNA. RNA is still in our cells today, and it can do something that is very very interesting. It can not only code for information (some virii are only RNA), but it can also do work (perform catalytic activity).

That is important in that RNA itself (coding much more simply than it does today) could have been some sort of proto-life. It has endogenously the two fundamental features: information coding, catalytic activity.

Creationists want to hold science to such a high burden of proof (which is where it should be - Science CAN withstand the scrutiny), yet they hold the religious explanations to ZERO burden of proof.

That dichotomy underlies the entire argument and really says it all.

If they are both held to the same level of scrutiny, it is no contest.

[nobody]

Creationists want to hold science to such a high burden of proof (which is where it should be - Science CAN withstand the scrutiny), yet they hold the religious explanations to ZERO burden of proof.

quote of the day

[Nick]

Yeah, Voronwe for President!

[Winnow]

Voronwe tried to prove the Chaos Theory every time we went on a raid.

The shooting of a single arrow at the wrong mob produces a tiny change in the state of the agro. Over a period of time, what the agro actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a a few second's time, a mob that would have devastated a Paladin doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to kill a Ranger, does.

[archeiron]

This topic has me surfing and researching. I thought this was a good read.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

Thank you, cid. That site is pure internet gold.

Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

They were all cannibals! The first plants were actually voracious carnivores, or is it herbavores since they eat other plants? Damnit, pesky confusing scientific terms!

# It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?

ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

Damn those pesky fruit flies!

# How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?

Those pesky bromeliads and their wily evolution defying ways! (Note: an epiphyte, not symbiotic, but who cares?)

Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?

what? WHAT???!


That guy needs to team up with THIS guy to tell us all like it really is.

[Voronwë]

to use Lepidopteran metamorphosis as an argument AGAINST evolution requires truly remarkable "thinking".


---

LOL i was searching around for a nice graphic, and came across this hilarious Wikipedia response to the claim that "butterfly evolution is too complex to have evolved."

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argumen ... ncredulity

[Nick]

It's just blatant use of doublethink. Eg - "Intelligent" design.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

millions of galaxies each with millions of solar systems that each have dozens to hundreds of planets and the best explanation as to why we are here is because God created us?

It is statisically impossible for us not to be here.

Then why are we the ONLY ones? If evolution happens, then how come there is not intelligent life on Mars? We know there was life there and other elements that exist on earth.....so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

[Aabidano]

Do the odds of any given random event happening "now" increase over time? From what I recall it's not cumulative, if something has a .1% chance of happening now, in any other moment it has the same chance.

Don't think this will convince anyone of anything, this sort of opinion isn't going to be swayed by facts.

[Lohrno]

so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

That's a pretty uninformed ascertation. There is definitely not enough evidence to support the claim that we are the ONLY one in the universe.

Only known planet would be more accurate. We have trouble detecting other planets at the moment, but work is being done. Based on the characteristics of other stars, there are formulas to predict how many other planets could have comprable civilizations to ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[noel]

Then why are we the ONLY ones? If evolution happens, then how come there is not intelligent life on Mars? We know there was life there and other elements that exist on earth.....so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

Source?

[Lohrno]

Do the odds of any given random event happening "now" increase over time? From what I recall it's not cumulative, if something has a .1% chance of happening now, in any other moment it has the same chance.

Yeah that's why I said my statistics are off. But the chances do increase as time goes on... Gosh I used to know that formula...

[Nick]

Please prove as fact that we are the only planet in the UNIVERSE that has life currently or has supported life in the past.

[Sionistic]

millions of galaxies each with millions of solar systems that each have dozens to hundreds of planets and the best explanation as to why we are here is because God created us?

It is statisically impossible for us not to be here.

Then why are we the ONLY ones? If evolution happens, then how come there is not intelligent life on Mars? We know there was life there and other elements that exist on earth.....so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

Mars is a prime example of evolution. The life there couldnt adapt, and thus died.

[Winnow]

millions of galaxies each with millions of solar systems that each have dozens to hundreds of planets and the best explanation as to why we are here is because God created us?

It is statisically impossible for us not to be here.

Then why are we the ONLY ones? If evolution happens, then how come there is not intelligent life on Mars? We know there was life there and other elements that exist on earth.....so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

Mars is a prime example of evolution. The life there couldnt adapt, and thus died.

We will find life on Mars. The amount of methane in the atmosphere virtually guarantees it. As for intelligent life, that remains to be seen until manned missions go to Mars to dive into the past history of the planet first hand.

[eOmniz]

No idea why it has to be one or the other.

I believe in some sort of creative act by being(s) above us, but I also believe in evolution, which was put in motion by something. Whats up with the all black or white?

I like the metaphor that deists like Ben Franklin used. God is like a clockmaker, she built it and wound it up and let it go, who knows what she's up to now.

[Lynks]

Then why are we the ONLY ones? If evolution happens, then how come there is not intelligent life on Mars? We know there was life there and other elements that exist on earth.....so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

How the hell do you know we are the ONLY ones in the universe. For all we know, there could be a race just as advanced as us (not capabable of traveling great distances in the universe) wondering if there is life elsewhere.

[Niffoni]

Then why are we the ONLY ones? If evolution happens, then how come there is not intelligent life on Mars? We know there was life there and other elements that exist on earth.....so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

Let me make sure I understand... someone points out that in the inifinity of time and space, anything no matter how improbable can happen...

And YOU counter by asking why we are the only beings to have evolved exactly like we did, and exist in this specific form RIGHT NOW in our solar system of less than a dozen planets?

That's what you're asking, right? Because I just want to make sure.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You don't find his questioning valid? Why? Why is it when you assholes question things, it is because you are so profound and when others do it's fucking insane? Who are the open-minded, evolved ones again?

His question is valid......if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still tons of different species of monkeys who have never changed at all? Why has no other creature evolved?

These are valid questions. In you constant struggle to put on an act of being an evolved and enlightened non-right winger, maybe some of you assholes ought to stop shutting out people who dare to ask a question that counters your already made up mind.

[Sionistic]

Because as you said, there are different species of monkies. Just because we havent seen what these creatures have come from, doesnt mean they arent there.

I believe it was Turkeys, that we were able to trace, through fosils, thier evolutionary path.

[Lynks]

His question is valid......if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still tons of different species of monkeys who have never changed at all? Why has no other creature evolved?

Just like to point out that we didnt evolve from monkeys, we just have the same ancestors.

Secondly, we are not the only creaures to evolve on this planet. I believe every other naimal evolved too. Compare a dog now and a dog from 2-3k years ago, they will be different.

[Sionistic]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/08 ... index.html

Scientists snub Kansas evolution hearings
Education hearings rigged, say science organizations.

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- Scientists have refused to participate in state Board of Education hearings this past week on how the theory of evolution should be treated in public schools, but they haven't exactly been silent.

About a dozen scientists, most from Kansas universities, spoke each day at news conferences after evolution critics testified before a board subcommittee. They expect to continue speaking out as the hearings wrap up on Thursday.

"They're in, they do their shtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."

The scientists' boycott was led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, which believe the hearings are rigged against the teaching of evolution.

Scientists said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses who were called by advocates of the "intelligent design" theory.

But the boycott has frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.

"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," board member Connie Morris said. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."

[Nick]

Haha Mid. Hahahahhaa

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Haha Mid. Hahahahhaa

Typical, thought provoking response from you. Well said Teeny. /golfclap

[Nick]

I've already thrown my opinion in, where's yours?

[Xzion]

You don't find his questioning valid? Why? Why is it when you assholes question things, it is because you are so profound and when others do it's fucking insane? Who are the open-minded, evolved ones again?

His question is valid......if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still tons of different species of monkeys who have never changed at all? Why has no other creature evolved?

These are valid questions. In you constant struggle to put on an act of being an evolved and enlightened non-right winger, maybe some of you assholes ought to stop shutting out people who dare to ask a question that counters your already made up mind.

many (all) other creatures have evolved over time...whales for instance were once smaller land animals, they have certain bone structures to proove it

humans 5 million years from now (if for some reason we survive that long) will look a lot different then humans today....even in the modern day many people are born without wisdom teeth and even appendixses, further signs of evolution

[Niffoni]

You don't find his questioning valid? Why? Why is it when you assholes question things, it is because you are so profound and when others do it's fucking insane? Who are the open-minded, evolved ones again?

You're equating evolution with progress. But since this is a common fallacy, I'll let it slide.

His question is valid......if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still tons of different species of monkeys who have never changed at all? Why has no other creature evolved?

Are you serious? You don't think a little organic matter evolving into a monkey isn't impressive enough? They don't have cell phones, so they're 'less evolved'? They sit around eating bananas and masturbating! That makes them smarter than most of the people I know, including me. If I could figure out how to live like that, I'd be one enlightened guy.

These are valid questions. In you constant struggle to put on an act of being an evolved and enlightened non-right winger, maybe some of you assholes ought to stop shutting out people who dare to ask a question that counters your already made up mind.

This is only a valid question if you make the naive assumption that evolution is desperately trying to turn every creature into us. Which not only would make it "intelligent design", it would also make no sense.

Yeah. Those humans turned out so great. Let's work on making more of them.

Asking questions is fine, but don't be disappointed when not every one of them makes you a Greek sage. Some of them have readily available answers, and just because some people don't know/like them doesn't make them less true.

I'm starting to realize that the reason some people question evolution so much is because they understand so little about it. So naturally, they have questions that either don't apply, or are easily dismissed.

[Hesten]

Then why are we the ONLY ones? If evolution happens, then how come there is not intelligent life on Mars? We know there was life there and other elements that exist on earth.....so why is this the ONLY planet in the entire universe that had evolution?

How the hell do you know we are the ONLY ones in the universe. For all we know, there could be a race just as advanced as us (not capabable of traveling great distances in the universe) wondering if there is life elsewhere.

OR even more evolved races that after looking closely at us decided to stay away. Im sure this messageboard could be one of the causes for that

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact? So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all? I mean.....evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

If we all came from the single cells and evolved from goo, then why could that exact same goo not evolve on any known planet into anything more than dust? Does it not bother you evolutionists that evolution only is known to happen on one single planet? In those umpteen billion years, wouldn't you think we might see just a PLANT or simple life form on another planet that we have observed?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact? So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all? I mean.....evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

If we all came from the single cells and evolved from goo, then why could that exact same goo not evolve on any known planet into anything more than dust? Does it not bother you evolutionists that evolution only is known to happen on one single planet? In those umpteen billion years, wouldn't you think we might see just a PLANT or simple life form on another planet that we have observed?

Kil, they are asking that you have faith in evolution. You know...FAITH. The exact thing they bash and ridicule. Hypocrites!

I believe in neither! I have no proof of either. And neither do you.

[Niffoni]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact? So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all? I mean.....evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

Who said it hasn't?

If we all came from the single cells and evolved from goo, then why could that exact same goo not evolve on any known planet into anything more than dust? Does it not bother you evolutionists that evolution only is known to happen on one single planet? In those umpteen billion years, wouldn't you think we might see just a PLANT or simple life form on another planet that we have observed?

You kinda answered your own question here. You talk about the billions of years in which something might happen, but we've only been able to see a very small part of our own solar system through very limited means for a few years now.

Hell, even now they're looking for evidence that life once existed, or still exists in some tiny form on Mars. That would be pretty damn fortunate if we managed to get there and there are still traces of life for us to find right next door to us. That would mean that it happened very very recently.

And that's even assuming that we'd immediately RECOGNIZE life if we saw it. The only context we have is for things that could survive on OUR planet. We have no idea what form life might take in a totally different environment. We don't even know if it COULD exist in a different environment or not.

BTW, the whole "magic goo" thing is just a hypothosis cooked up by certain evolution lightweights who feel the need to explain everything, even when they have no clue how it really happened. Genesis for Geeks.

[Animale]

The two main requirements for life as we know it to exist are water + correct energy input (solar primarily, others possibly). It has also been suggested that a large moon (and the tides it brings) are necessary for life to begin, but that is just a supposition.

There are certain conditions in which we think that life cannot exist (at least in the same form as it is on earth). At the two extremes are mercury and pluto... way too much and too little solar energy input for life to sustain itself, respectively. Also, without water life cannot exist, which excludes many of the other planets - we think.

The apparent uniqueness of the life on earth does not "bother" me. It just goes to show that the requirements for life to exist are somewhat exacting and that our observations are very limited. Our sample size of planets is very small, only this solar system for now, and we're not even sure that life is unique to earth within this solar system (mars anyone?). Basically, the only two planets we know of that meet the requirements of water and solar input are earth and mars, so our sample size is limited to two. And it appears that life existed (exists?) on Mars as well.


LIFE ON EARTH IS NOT UNIQUE.


Your "ideas" about evolution, life, and its beginnings make you sound like an uneducated, unthinking moron. Just logically think about things, and they can make sense. Math is your friend here, as is observation. The thing that people don't understand is that life (and complexity) appears to go against thermodynamics (entropy wins). However, even in life and complexity, entropy still wins - at a faster rate than if things were left to their own. Evolution and thermodynamics are not incompatible, in fact the former assists in the latter (concentrated complexity is gained at the price of increased entropy of the whole system).

Animale

[Lynks]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact? So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all? I mean.....evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

You do know there is more than 1 galaxy in the universe right?

Edit: Mid, evolution is not faith, its fact.

[Aabidano]

The universe is a big place and we haven't even explored our whole planet yet, let alone our solar system. Could we be unique? It's possible, but I don't think that's very likely. There's a fairly good chance that even if other life exists we'll never be aware of it's existance. Partially due to the distances involved, just our galaxy is staggeringly large.

Some of the comments on this thread seem like the people who were convinced the earth was the center of the solar system. And refused to change their mind, even when shown otherwise.

"As we know it" is very, very limited.

His question is valid......if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still tons of different species of monkeys who have never changed at all? Why has no other creature evolved?

They have evolved, just on a different path than us.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact? So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all? I mean.....evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

You do know there is more than 1 galaxy in the universe right?

Edit: Mid, evolution is not faith, its fact.

Nah. If that happened its only because the aliens that brought us here intended it to be that way.

[Lynks]

Gotcha

[miir]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact?

That is not a fact.

So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all?

This question is based on the fallacy in your first statement.
Different planets are (quite possibly) at different stages of evolution.
On a universal scale, the time it took for life to evolve (into man) on earth is very insignificant.

evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

In it's most basic definition, that is true.
Evolution of life is far more complex...

[Marbus]

Mars could have held life at one time, who knows, hopefully we will at some point in time. The issue is it can't support complex life as we know it right now... that still doesn't mean there isn't life there.

Our distance from the sun, our moon and many other things make Earth unique but here are billions upon billions of other worlds out there, any of which could be in a similar postion as Earth and have similiar life on it.

From a Christian standpoint, what does it matter if there is life on other planets? I think that would be grand to see how our religious understandings evolved over time. Are there any similarities or only differences? It could go a long way into the belief that creation had a guiding hand.

The stuff in the article is just hypothetical nonsense as is all the creation "science" arguements. God gave us the Bible, God also gave us the intelligence and will to understand his word, through Him, in a non literal sense. To only take for face value what is written on a printed page that has been translated numerous times takes away from God, IMHO. These CS people need to pray more and ask God to help them reconcile what they read with proof that is right before their eyes.

Evolution is the best explination we have for where we came from, for now. I do believe that the evolution was guided and I believe that Guide was God.

Marb

[Voronwë]

so Kilmoll, your argument in favor of Intelligent Design is:

Intelligent life does not exist on Mars. Therefore, it is impossible for "Intelligent Life" to have evolved on Earth without Divine intervention.

That is the logical equivalent of saying the following:

My investment in Cisco stock lost money. Therefore, if you buy stock in any company you will lose money.

--

Midnyte-

Faith is not required to believe in Evolution. Belief is not required. It happened whether or not you believe in it. You say "i have no proof of either".

Because you personally have no proof does not mean that the proof does not exist.

I personally have no proof that Jupiter actually exists. I mean, i've never personally been there. I mean i guess all the "stars" in the sky could be pinholes poked in a big black sheet and it is the Light of Heaven shining through.

I mean i have no personal proof on my front doorstep that is isn't.

a mistake that a lot of people make is that they automatically assume that because a number of things are possible, they all have the same odds of happening. Gambling is a good thing to remember. It is possible that the Tampa Bay Devil Rays will win the World Series this year. It is possible the New York Yankees will win the WOrld Series this year. They both have almost identical records at this time. But chances of them winning are not equal.

With the evolution v. creationism thing, even being as generous as possible to creationism and saying "it is possible it happened". If you take that bet as it is 50/50 or even 99.99999999999999999/0.0000000000000001 you are taking losing odds.

I would bet the odds are much greater that you will die right this second than that Creationism is the manner in which The Universe had its origin.

[archeiron]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact? So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all? I mean.....evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

If we all came from the single cells and evolved from goo, then why could that exact same goo not evolve on any known planet into anything more than dust? Does it not bother you evolutionists that evolution only is known to happen on one single planet? In those umpteen billion years, wouldn't you think we might see just a PLANT or simple life form on another planet that we have observed?

I just wanted to point out to you a number of observations that may have contributed to Earth being a viable location for life.

• The Earth has plentiful quantities of water.
• The Earth's atmosphere and distance from the Sun combine to make for the right balance of temperatures to have liquid water.
• The Earth has a large satellite (The Moon) that acts as a shield against many comet and asteroid collisions. The Moon is most likely a peice of the Earth that was broken off during a collision with a comet or asteroid at some point during the Earth's early development.
• The Earth lacks high concentrations of toxic compounds (unless you count oxygen) in the atmosphere and water.
• The Solar System is on the outer edge of a spiral galaxy. What this means is that our star does not regularly pass near to other stars that would disrupt our planet's orbit and that we do not frequently encounter large space debris that would destroy the inner planets. Many astronomers feel that the stability and protection afford to the fringe systems in a galaxy makes them more likely candidates for hosting life (intelligent or otherwise).

To suggest that we evolved from goo is a misunderstanding of commonly accepted scientific dogma.

The fact that life is only present on one planet that we know of, does not preclude its presence on other (unknown) planets, nor does it prevent people from making sound, reproducable observations about the world around them.

What is staggering is the number of people on this board that know next to nothing about evolution. I was educated in the US until I was 15, and I recall having learned very detailed, reproducable facts about biology and evolution YEARS before I left the US. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the inclination to justify evolution by presenting a course on the actual body of ideas (and supporting evidence) to this board, so I will content myself with chuckling at the ignorance of the people here that are unwilling or unable to read up on the science of biology themselves

The body of scientific information is available to everyone, one has but to read up on the information themselves and apply sound reasoning to its interpretation.

[Lohrno]

You don't find his questioning valid? Why? Why is it when you assholes question things, it is because you are so profound and when others do it's fucking insane? Who are the open-minded, evolved ones again?

His question is valid......if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still tons of different species of monkeys who have never changed at all? Why has no other creature evolved?

These are valid questions. In you constant struggle to put on an act of being an evolved and enlightened non-right winger, maybe some of you assholes ought to stop shutting out people who dare to ask a question that counters your already made up mind.

Most of his questions are fine, save the small almost zero chance of life existing. From what we know, there would be a small chance of life NOT existing somewhere in the universe.

My major bone is with the conclusions he is drawing, and how he keeps using the words "common sense" and "common knowledge." Many years ago common knowledge told us the earth was flat...

To paraphrase - "If matter cannot be created or destroyed where did matter and the laws of the universe come from?"

I think that's a good question it's the part after it I have trouble supporting with evidence - "Must be god."

Sure it COULD be god, but there is no evidence one way or the other.

[Voronwë]

who says that the energy(matter) of the universe has an origin?

if God doesn't have to have an origin ("i am who am"), why does the universe?

i'm not speaking of the Big Bang, i'm speaking of the state that immediately preceeded that.

perhaps what is more relevant is that time may more or less be meaningless at that point immediately before the Big Bang (i have no idea), so to say something "begins" or "ends" when all of the matter in the universe is in that singular state may really have no meaning.

i have no idea. (but i'm sure somebody does)

[Winnow]

• The Earth has a large satellite (The Moon) that acts as a shield against many comet and asteroid collisions. The Moon is most likely a peice of the Earth that was broken off during a collision with a comet or asteroid at some point during the Earth's early development.

Mostly good points but this one is a little weak don't you think? The Moon has about a 2 percent chance of shielding anything from the Earth. It has to be in the right spot. The craters you see on the moon are due to the lack of an atmosphere and geological change to cover them up over time like the Earth does to it's impact craters but both the Earth and Moon are hit.

I believe there is some evidence for a catastrophic impact on Mars that may have created Phobos. (wiping out the atmosphere and killed anything larger than micro organisms on the planet)

Unless you can explain further why the Earth's moon has more than a small percent chance of deflecting anything (take into consideration it's size and distance as well as the overall external virtual sphere surrounding the earth at the Moon's distance. It's gravity can just as well alter the trajectory of a space object into the path of the earth as deflect it (if it doesn't impact the Moon directly)

I mention this because religious people tend to find one little thing like this and use it to discount the entire argument. You've got to be careful when debating with the cultists!

[Lohrno]

Every planet in our solar system has been around the same billions of years the earth has. Can anyone dispute that as a fact? So why could life evolve on this planet from the exact same matter that each planet had at the start of the universe, yet on the other planets nothing could evolve at all? I mean.....evolving means adapting to your surroundings and changing to survive. That is what each of you is saying right?

If we all came from the single cells and evolved from goo, then why could that exact same goo not evolve on any known planet into anything more than dust? Does it not bother you evolutionists that evolution only is known to happen on one single planet? In those umpteen billion years, wouldn't you think we might see just a PLANT or simple life form on another planet that we have observed?

The 'goo' you are talking about is a molecule known as RNA or DNA that can reproduce itself. You need a planet capable of allowing the right conditions for it to do so. Too hot, or too cold, too many other compounds that interfere with it, and about 1000 other things will not allow it. The right conditions have to be present.

It is kind of silly when we know there are billions of galaxies with billions of starts out there to say not one of them has the same conditions as ours.

There also could be life not as we know it. We are in the right orbit in our solar system with the right chemical composition. Again, I refer you to the drake equation.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It is kind of silly when we know there are billions of galaxies with billions of starts out there to say not one of them has the same conditions as ours.

No more or less silly than saying one of them does have the same conditions as ours.

[Lohrno]

No more or less silly than saying one of them does have the same conditions as ours.

No, I don't think so.

The reason is this: We know that there are X billion of stars like ours. Now supposing 99% didn't have planets like ours we widdle that down, etc. What we are left with is a number of planets that could have life like ours, figure out the chances, etc. We already have some statistics on these things. (They are admitedly educated guesses, but still workable for now with the best of our limited knowledge.) Pessimistically, as I recall, there are 100 other civilizations at our level somewhere in our galaxy.

Again, this is science IE: the best of our knowledge. Nothing is set in stone, and our guesses become refined as we gain knowledge over time.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

No more or less silly than saying one of them does have the same conditions as ours.

No, I don't think so.

The reason is this: We know that there are X billion of stars like ours. Now supposing 99% didn't have planets like ours we widdle that down, etc. What we are left with is a number of planets that could have life like ours, figure out the chances, etc. We already have some statistics on these things. (They are admitedly educated guesses, but still workable for now with the best of our limited knowledge.) Pessimistically, as I recall, there are 100 other civilizations at our level somewhere in our galaxy.

Again, this is science IE: the best of our knowledge. Nothing is set in stone, and our guesses become refined as we gain knowledge over time.

[noel]

The stupid is really shining brightly in this thread.