the last ditch effort of evolutionists to hold on to their crumbling theory.

at least in the scientific world.

gradual changes over great lengths of time and every now and then in a colony of organisms a great leap forward followed by very little change for a long time.

saw this on a show dwelling on the origins of life.

funny part is, the latest evolutionary theory is meeting with much ridicule.

one anthropologist on the show says that the theory of evolution stay in the public in spite of not because of the evidence.

sir arthur hoyle computed the chances of the 200 protiens coming together to form the amoeba what is considered the first form of life.

the result 1 in 10 to the 47th power, a mathematical impossibility.

further goes on to state the evolutionists formula for creation which is:

(nothing + nobody) * flying chance = everything.

a ludicrous statement at best, but the theory most believe.

one geneticist said that one of the reasons behind the belief in evolution is that man is 98% similar to apes.

the geneticist, listen closely now,

THE GENETICIST, said that's just not true,

the dna you get from your both of your parents at best makes you 93% similar to either one.

and goes on to say that according to the evolutionists(amazing how being a geneticist he's not one!) theory, a cloud which is 98% water, a watermelon which is 98% water and a jellyfish which is 98% water are all the same thing.

this show did not go on to state the bible as truth, but one biologist said what i've been saying all along,

"all fields of science save one(the one he occupies); biology; all are pushing more and more to the impossibiliity of evolution, and other areas which don't even get a hearing in the matter are shoved aside. it's time to face this with an open mind or i fear all life sciences will face a sudden lack of credibility in the near future."

that's a quote forget his name,

but i seem to remember a post i made a few months back that stated with the mapping of human genome finally here and the better understanding of dna and how it works will end the theory of evolution in 10 years i believe was the number i gave.

almost word for word with doctrinated biologist of which i am not.

it's amazing how people who willingly follow without any proof whatsoever in the 7,000 years of recorded history and say that the missing links not found in the fossil record(of which none exist according to the show, or can be twisted to make you believe, but when genetically broken down impossible) say there is none because they disintegrated(yet in the almost limitless number of lifeforms on this planet there is not even one) and blindingly follow the formula (nothing + nobody) * flying chance = everything ridicule those who say the earth is still flat.

if evolution is eventually proven true, i can admit i was wrong because i am unsure as to the start of life although i believe in god, i don't believe he would make something that needed tending after it was made,

those of you who follow evolution wholeheartedly, when it is proven false will you do the same?

or will you defend it to your grave like the religion it really is.

the odds of 200 protiens coming together is 1 in 10 to the 47th power? so what? the odds of a planet even forming that is capable of sustain life is somewhere in the same neighborhood, yet here it is. improbability does not equal impossibility. so there's no indication of "missing links" in recorded history? duh. recorded history only extends back 4000 years and evolution happens on the scale of millions of years.

as far as arguments go that was pretty weak. half remembered quotes from scientists whom names you have forgotten. a rambling directionless narrative wrapped up by hippocritical religious drivel. as long as people like you are evolutions major critics i don't think the theory is going anywhere soon.

REREAD!!!

jackass,

i said no missing links in the fossil record,

no record of changes in recorded history.

what the hell planet do you live on or is it 2,000 bce where you live.

i don't know about you but here on earth we have at least 8,000 years of recorded history.

and the probability of planets appearing is extremely high.

you have better odds of a planet forming then getting a royal flush in poker.

which is quite a range from seperation from 1 in 10 to 47th power; when all legitimate scientists say 1 in 10 to 30th power is impossible.

and it's not 200 proteins; it's 2000; i guess after checking though that was my mistake.

"as far as arguments go that was pretty weak. "

so you telling me i'm full of shit is powerful.

TAKE NOTICE PEOPLE HOW THE EVOLUTIONIST POSTS HIS ARGUMENT FOR THE THEORY:

bullshit na,na,na,na,na.

notice i made no mention of religion at all in post except that i believe in god.

stated plainly the show did not support the bible as truth;

and stated plainly that i question the bibles view.

yet

"a rambling directionless narrative wrapped up by hippocritical religious drivel. "

this is the post to follow to discredit me.

while producing no evidence of proof of evolution;

and it also plays on you the reader; your distrust of religion.

my statements while plainly saying not religioun driven;

this person throws it in their to play on your distrust of religion.

and i'm sorry for not taking notes while watching the show;

i actually only stumbled on the last 10 minutes of it;

and 10 minutes of show provided my post; that after the first scientist i came here to start posting and every second there was something new to remember.

but i think i covered the jist of the 10 minutes i saw pretty good.

using one direct quote from a biologist(the last person interviewed very easily remembered); and rough quotes from a geneticist, an anthropologist, and a mathematician.

why didn't you post counter from such scientists as well to partake in a constructive dialog.

as long as people like you are evolutions major supporters i don't think the theory is lasting through the weekend.

bring forth your evidence fool.

i challenge you,

i'm not going to go into detail to state my reasons for not believing evolution; aside from what's posted above which is not mine; i've done it a million times on here, and you won't make any difference.

spiffy, smithee care to offer a warning for what this guys about to get himself into.

yeah that's right millions of years;

where most reptiles haven't changed one fucking bit; not even a variation within a species. not even the miracle of the added dna molecule from parents who did not have it.

proof of your theory.

all you are is a religious fanatic holding on tightly to a theory you can't even defend.

like all religions; all you can do is try to discredit me without crediting yourself.

bring it on,

i welcome it. and remember the last thing i posted, i think we all know which side you are on.

"if evolution is eventually proven true, i can admit i was wrong because i am unsure as to the start of life although i believe in god, i don't believe he would make something that needed tending after it was made,

those of you who follow evolution wholeheartedly, when it is proven false will you do the same?

or will you defend it to your grave like the religion it really is."

unlike you i don't blindly follow things.

i await the proof, and until it is proven i will not close my eyes.

does evolution also recruit it's clergy from matchbooks?

and why has the theory of evolution if so sound changed over the years;

from dramatic overnight changes to subtle changes over time?

because like religion; when other branches of science conflict; you must rework it to fit with what is known to be true.

just like the catholic church jumping all over the big bang because it provided a moment of creation, instead of what was believed(even by the church) that the universe like god was eternal.

i believe that's case and point on the wandering directionless narrative. try organizing your thoughts and leaving out the angry raving and unrelated thoughts. i reread twice and don't understand why you even mentioned "7000 years of recorded history" it doesn't seem to have anything to do with your argument.

i stand by my statement about planets forming. not just any planet will support life. among many other numerous factors a planet has to have an extemely stable orbit. even a bit of a wobble and weather patterns will be erratic in the extreme. the only reason earths orbit is stable is because we have a very large moon relative to the earths size which helps stabilize it. in order for a planet to form with this large of a moon two smaller planets have to collide at the exact correct angle. the odds of this happening is unimaginably small. combine this with all the other unlikely factors and one such planet MIGHT exist in each galaxy. 1 in 10 to the 47th power is NOT impossible. 0 in 10 to the 47th power is impossible. here is an article on the matter. http://www.godandscience.org/love/sld027.html

finally... REREAD MY MESSAGE YOU FUCKING IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT!! i didn't say i believed in evolution. i didn't say i believed in god. in fact the only thing i did was say how STUPID you are. i don't give a flying fuck which theory is correct. you seem to have some strong (one might say fanatical) views and at least some knowledge in the matter. if you want to be a scientist or a philisopher or whatever learn how to write like one if you want to be given any credibility. that's my point of view.

you nod at the speaker at the drive thru don't you?

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 07-28-2001).]

So do you beleive the story of creation in the bible?

"if evolution is eventually proven true, i can admit i was wrong because i am unsure as to the start of life although i believe in god, i don't believe he would make something that needed tending after it was made,

those of you who follow evolution wholeheartedly, when it is proven false will you do the same?"

yes, lost, i will.

But, if capitalism turns out not to be the best form of government/economy, will you admit that whatever replaces it is better or will you defend it to your grave?

see now isn't that better lostmind? short and to the point. your thoughts are much easier to understand that way.

I don't get it. What show was this?? As far as we know...you're just pullin' this out of your ass.

quote:

---

sir arthur hoyle computed the chances of the 200 protiens coming together to form the amoeba what is considered the first form of life.

---

The amoeba was not the first form of life.

quote:

---

the result 1 in 10 to the 47th power, a mathematical impossibility.

---

A mathematical impossbility perhaps but then again in reality it's still possible. And as long as there is chance of something happening it just might.

Also, from what you've been saying about life being mathematicly impossible is very interesting because it means that the chances of other life in the universe is narrowed down signifgantly and that life on Earth is a freak accident.

quote:

---

7,000 years of recorded history and say that the missing links not found in the fossil record

---

This is explained by a newer theory of evolution. It's Choatic Theory or something along those lines. It says that organisms do not change slowly over long periods of time but quickly over a short period of time.

quote:

---

and why has the theory of evolution if so sound changed over the years

---

That's the nature of science buddy. Theories can shift and change as new information come to light.

mycroft, you choke chickens for the kkk don't you.

red rover, i believe in the accuracy of the order of events from a viewer who was standing on earth. i won't go into detail unless you want me to.

being a deist though and believing god to be omnipotent and omniscient, i don't believe he would've created something that needed tending after creation, so yes i question god coming around 3 billion years after initial creation and planting life; but again i just don't know.

person 101 depends on what replaces it.

fred madison the name of the show was mysteries of the unexplained:the origin of life.

it was on pax and dwelled on the two major beliefs, the bible and evolution; i missed the part on the bible.

but the show ended with the narrator saying if the bible's story is in question and evolution is starting to fall by the wayside unless your a biologist(since most other sciences conflict with evolution) that's what led to the quote by the biologist whose name eludes me that i said had the statement that ended the show.

bongman, that was a mistake in my haste of remembering the show and typing at the same time.

it actually went for the 2,000 protiens combining just to form the amoeba.

as arthur c. clarke says nothing is impossible, however a great many things are improbable.

so i have to say your point is a valid one.

actually bongman though the new theory of evolution is principalia equilibria, that progressive changes happen over a great period of time then all of a sudden overnight basically a colony of organisms will give birth to life that is completely different from the parent and then no change at all for a very long time.

maybe it is referred to as the chaotic theory, because it sure is, and is used to explain why there are no trasitional phases of life in the fossil record.

but it still doesn't answer the basic question that i have regarding evolution.

how does dna materialize out of nowhere, from a union of two cells that don't have it.

or does bacteria have the gene brown or blond hair as well.

one thing most people overlook is that if evolution is true; i share a kinship if travelled back in the family tree far enough to the bacteria that was my great, great, great, great, great, great, etc.........., great grandfather somewhere along produced a family line that relates me to the trees and grass outside my house.

lord knows though how many times removed.

now let's put this into context,

the bible says god created all life and man is descended from the creation of one man and one woman.

this is ridiculed.

evolution says that at somepoint in the past a piece of inanimate matter in the most unusual and improbable circumstances all of a sudden became animate. and all life sprung from this.

and this is believed as one statement i mentioned above says "in spite of, not because of the evidence"

i think in evolution the chicken or the egg theory applies as well.

what was the piece of inanimate matter that became life?

did it affect just one piece of inanimate matter or a collection of inanimate matter.

if it was a collection was it all the same thing or a variety of different things.

the chemist on the show also said that although chemistry can explain death quite well, it can't explain life and the origin of it at all, it seemed to him that the purpose of chemistry was death and not the creation of life.

this show basically went on everything that i believe, since i question and the bible and find evolution a dupe of mankind that there must be an answer that we are overlooking or haven't found yet.

and i find it really funny that evolution is accepted wholeheartedly by most people without one single shred of physical evidence.

just an idea and belief that people cling to.

if that isn't the definition of religion i don't know what is.

This is the same arguement all over again and I don't see what it is for.

Evolution floats my boat. Somehow I believe that one celled creatures became humans. I can see how that happens. Chemistry can explain it.

Now the beginning of life. The point of time when all the DNA and other protiens mashed together to form something that would have all the charecteristics of life.

I do not know how this happened. I believe that it was just some freak accident that made life. Im open to most explainations.


Now what are we discussing. You keep on discrediting evolution but you're also speaking of the beginning of life. What is it?

quote:

---

maybe it is referred to as the chaotic theory, because it sure is, and is used to explain why there are no trasitional phases of life in the fossil record.

---

It's called the chaotic theory because these changes would occur during times of chaos.

Never mind how improbable evolution is, do you have a better solution?

Is it any less probably than a god placing 2 people on earth and saying, spread the love?

and the simple fact that it may be improbable for life to have spontaniously mutated, but for us to be alive to ask that question, something must of happend. it is called the weak anthropic principle, it states that if these 'immposible' circumstances did not happen, there would be no one round to question it. therefore the anser to the question how did such a rare set of circumstances happen can be anserd by saying it happend because if they didnt, we wouldnt be here to ask why they did.

Does anyone actualy understand me? or do i ramble on for too long...yet creating verey short posts, ah well, maybe i'll try again later.

Hm...yeah, what are you discussing? The origin of life and the evolution of life is different.

I think he's figured out pretty well what he's getting himself into by now.

At this point, until I see babies born with horns and mutations and shit, or any (maybe all) gods relevant to the beginning of life on earth come on over for a bite to eat, I will continue to say, what the fuck does it matter?

quote:

---

what the fuck does it matter?

---

Now Spiffy, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. So I counter say:

What the fuck does anything matter?

Let me flesh out the reason I said it, then.

You're reading this board. So am I. So are several other people at their various computers around the world. The question at hand is, did we, the human species, come to exist due to an evolutionary process started by some carbon atoms billions of years ago, or were we placed here by some higher power and set loose upon the world?

Either way, we're still here, in the same world, reading the same message board. Thus, my feeling is, what the fuck does it matter?

i believe that the creation of life is an inevitable side effect of the creation of the universe. to explain, in the instant that the universe was created there were infinite possibilities. all of time and space were open, there were no restrictions. at this instant at the begining of time anything was possible, even the creation of life. with infinite time and infinite space for this to happen how could life not be created?

i believe the same thing about evolution. with billions of years and lots of room how could life not grow and change? how could intelligent life not evolve?

i have strange beliefs. i believe that intelligent life is the inevitable outcome of the creation of the universe, but i don't believe in god.

bongman you're right it is a redundant argument.

i'm not trying to change anybodies view, just to stop take a look and maybe there's something more.

with everything i've experienced and percieved to be true; the two major theories just don't do it for me.

spiffy it may not matter to you, but it does matter to me.

why am i here; and how did i come to be,

i don't believe in random chance, i can't believe in random chance.

and i would love to see, read, or hear about a new idea. just one even. but i can't even begin to speculate, because i don't have the background.

i view life as cause, effect, and reaction.

and all of these from the beginning of time led to each one of us being here.

but all i am given is specualation when it comes to life;

whereas science has explained all but up to this point.

Evolution is a fact. Perhaps not biological human evolution from apes, but the desirability of the strong growing stronger is undeniable. Our origins are rather irelevant. Wether they be divine, scientific, random, planned, or otherwise, the evidence will always point towards evolution, towards growing stronger. The Gods of old supported this. Natural law supports this. Reality supports this. The Crucified and his flock disagree, but when have they been right?
Oh yeah, this was general and sweepin on purpose, its my first post. I will get more specific for you as time passes.

Who made God?

------------------
I don't want the dreams you try to sell...this disease I gave to my self

Nice question govinda. Nice answer - Humans.