How do you think life came to earth?

I know that life needs the earth, it needs water, it needs fire (sun), and it needs the wind. I understand that small creatures could begin to live on earth but what I don't understand is how the nature could form creatures so big, like the humans. How did life proceed from these little creatures which came from mud, combined with the four elements? I have never seen a creature form into another, bigger creature! I can only imagine small '1 millimeter creatures' come from mud. But all they ever do is to duplicate themselves and they never form into a bigger creature, do they?

It's not at all weird that there are so many different creatures, because they all live under different circumstances and the 'creative power' expresses itself (life) on all stages up to man. I think Life began in the water, but almost at the same time, it came to land and air, with rain and wind. I know that God is the origin of the universe but I don't understand how all the animals came here. How did the first human come here? How? The first ape? Did it come from mud too? No... that's impossible! But maybe YOU know.

Its called evolution...read up on it. Little things do eventually turn into bigger things.

I have done a lot of reading and what I read is astounding - evolution is more faith than fact.

I can't prove where life came from. There is no logical explaination. In a fit of anti-logic, scientists came up with this idea of evolution more than a century ago. The problem is that all attempts to prove evolution have actually gone the other way and disproved the theory. Thus, science has no idea at all where life came from.

I personally kind of like the creation story. There is no proof, but it looks as good as anything else, and it fits all the available facts. The problem with creation is - how can science prove that 6000 years ago, something miraculous happened? It can't - so there is no proof.

David F.: I have done a lot of reading and what I read is astounding - evolution is more faith than fact.

I can't prove where life came from. There is no logical explaination. In a fit of anti-logic, scientists came up with this idea of evolution more than a century ago. The problem is that all attempts to prove evolution have actually gone the other way and disproved the theory. Thus, science has no idea at all where life came from.
*************
M*W: Science has proven evolution. I'm sorry you can't understand it.
*************
David F.: I personally kind of like the creation story. There is no proof, but it looks as good as anything else, and it fits all the available facts.
*************
M*W: Please explain what the 'available facts' are.
*************
David F.: The problem with creation is - how can science prove that 6000 years ago, something miraculous happened? It can't - so there is no proof.
*************
M*W: Science doesn't limit itself to the 'miraculous.' The proof science has given us is the Big Bang -- a remote, godless, ripple in the universe that created all.

Ditto to everything Medicine Woman just said.

I'm not sure what you are reading but the theory of evolution is about as close to scientific fact as you can come. Creationism on the other hand isn't science at all. You can not have an idea and then go out looking for evidence to support it and then call that science. Evidence leads to theories, theories don't lead to evidence.

david f, you seem to be the authority on evolution,
can you explain, lets say a germ changes into a stronger germ, how this happens.
or lets say a horse, has it's way with a donkey what happens.
i think you will find this is evolution in process, this is how things changed from one thing to another, and it was a lot further back then 6000 years millions to be exact.

if what you have to say, is not going to change the silence ,dont speak.

If you already understand how small creatures could begin to live on Earth, all you have to know is that Humans are just self-organized collections of these small creatures, we call them cells. You have seen this happen when an embryo divides from one cell into several, then hundreds, then millions, billions, etc... I don't think life began in water, land, and air at the same time. First it was water, then land, finally air, over millions of years.

I think I know where David was going was this but he may not have known the name. It is the Oparin- Haldane which both suggested the idea of spontaneous creation based on chemical reactions leading up to it.
http://graffiti.virgin.net/c.gordon-smith/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html

Because RNA and other micro biologic theories suggest sponataneous creation its not neccessarly in conflict with a divine presense that suggests the same thing it is just not congruent to biblical creation theories which suggest a disproven timeline.

http://www.azinet.com/originoflife.html
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/lifeorigin.html

spidergoat: If you already understand how small creatures could begin to live on Earth, all you have to know is that Humans are just self-organized collections of these small creatures, we call them cells. You have seen this happen when an embryo divides from one cell into several, then hundreds, then millions, billions, etc... I don't think life began in water, land, and air at the same time. First it was water, then land, finally air, over millions of years.
*************
M*W: I agree with you. First, there were one-celled animals that lived in the oceans and multiplied and crawled upon the land. Then they evolved to a more complex state. Reptiles evolved into birds and other animals and mammals. Some mammals still live in the oceans. Just because we walk erect upon the land doesn't mean we didn't evolve from out of the oceans. The human race is still evolving as I am sure the reptiles and amphibians and mammals are too. We're not finished, yet.

Imagine that you create a very large cage and put a group of mice into it. You let the mice live and breed in this cage freely, without disturbance. If you were to come back after 500 years and look into this cage, you would find mice. 500 years of breeding would cause no change in the mice in that cage -- they would not evolve in any noticeable way. You could leave the cage alone for 50000 years and look in again and what you would find in the cage is mice. After 1000000 years, you would look into the cage and find NOT 15 new species, but mice...

Agree?

That's the way I think it is; Species don't form to other species by reproducing.

BUT... I know that after millions of years (or a lot earlier) MANY of these animals will be dead here and new kinds of species will evolve. They will not come from ONE "ancestor", but they will form from the ground individually. Just as when dinosaurs died out, in the same way these species will die out, because the circumstances on earth changes constantly. We still have many creatures that resemble the animals (dinosaurs) that lived 65 million years ago but the exception is that the creatures of today have become smaller. Why smaller? Because the circumstances on earth has changed into that direction, and the "old" species could not stand the change.

I know that evolution exists. People will evolve, they will have a greater skull, but they will still be "humans", they will not form into totally new, different creatures, because of "reproduction".. ever. I know that rabbits have great ears because they had to use them much, but they didn't form into anything else than rabbits when they reproduced, "cloned", themselves! Things CAN form into "different" "things", but "only" on molecular level. Things will still form when they have reached, even as high state as humans, but they will not form to different species.

The "fishes" NEVER came to land and got legs! That's ridiculous! I know that alligators live in water and in land, but that's what they are! They will never form into land animals or fishes, because they never were fishes or land animals, they have always been what they are - alligators. Actually, they would die if they tried to live ONLY in the water or on earth, but they will not die, because they will live in both, because that's their purpose! Maybe they were born somehow on wet ground, but still not water.

Just because the bonestructure of the creatures are similar doesn't mean that they come from one ancestor. Everything comes from one singularity that was before the big bang, and because of this, all things are alike (in certain ways), because they have a common source. All things are for example formed from the same things, atoms, and those which are smaller than atoms; Everything is "energy", "motion", "vibration".
---
Why do you think life started from only ONE "organism" in water? The plants doesn't come from a common ancestor, rather the earth was watered; grass, trees and flowers came up from the earth, with the help of the sun and the four winds. So I think there were countless small creatures born in water and earth at the same time. This I find a LOT more convincing that all life would come from one single organism - If one organism could come to life and reproduce itself, isn't it more likely that many of these organisms came to being in the same way all over the planet. In water and earth, because the wind blows the water to land (rain). So you say life started as a simple organism in water? Why only one of these? Why not more, a lot more?

I find it hard to think that one single organism could reproduce itself so much that it would be spread all over the earth. "Living" things can copy itself, not form into another beings! All things can evolve, but they never evolve into different species.

Tell me the exact process of a reptile forming into a bird! Tell me why there are SO many different creatures on earth; insects, zebras, horses, apes, humans, parrots, miniature monkeys, butterflies, dinosaurs, snakes, beavers... why? They all come from one another? I can understand that a miniature man could've come from mud, and then he ate food and became bigger.. just as when a baby grows. Then they came bigger and reproduced themselves, until they were "big"... but that sounds a little weird... At least it might explain the "myth" of elves and small people! But if man came from apes, where did apes come from? There are many different "apes", like those miniature apes that are just 20 cm or so.

what768: Imagine that you create a very large cage and put a group of mice into it. You let the mice live and breed in this cage freely, without disturbance. If you were to come back after 500 years and look into this cage, you would find mice. 500 years of breeding would cause no change in the mice in that cage -- they would not evolve in any noticeable way. You could leave the cage alone for 50000 years and look in again and what you would find in the cage is mice. After 1000000 years, you would look into the cage and find NOT 15 new species, but mice...

Agree?
*************
M*W: No, because every species is subject to mutations that occur.
*************
what768: That's the way I think it is; Species don't form to other species by reproducing.
*************
M*W: Mutations can occur through diet and the environment. If you put all these 'mice' in a large cage, when they multiplied beyond the capacity of their normal space, they would become homocidal mice and homosexual mice from the mutations.
*************
what768: BUT... I know that after millions of years (or a lot earlier) MANY of these animals will be dead here and new kinds of species will evolve. They will not come from ONE "ancestor", but they will form from the ground individually. Just as when dinosaurs died out, in the same way these species will die out, because the circumstances on earth changes constantly. We still have many creatures that resemble the animals (dinosaurs) that lived 65 million years ago but the exception is that the creatures of today have become smaller. Why smaller? Because the circumstances on earth has changed into that direction, and the "old" species could not stand the change.

I know that evolution exists. People will evolve, they will have a greater skull, but they will still be "humans", they will not form into totally new, different creatures, because of "reproduction".. ever. I know that rabbits have great ears because they had to use them much, but they didn't form into anything else than rabbits when they reproduced, "cloned", themselves! Things CAN form into "different" "things", but "only" on molecular level. Things will still form when they have reached, even as high state as humans, but they will not form to different species.
*************
M*W: I disagree. Mutations occur at the molecular level, and early man evolved from, say, from homo erectus to homo sapiens sapiens. Humanity is still evolving, and we still have a long way to go before we are complete to our best capacity. Then we will be called homo spirtus.
*************
what678: The "fishes" NEVER came to land and got legs! That's ridiculous!
*************
M*W: There are some extinct species of fish that have rudimentary legs as do some reptiles.
*************
what786: I know that alligators live in water and in land, but that's what they are! They will never form into land animals or fishes, because they never were fishes or land animals, they have always been what they are - alligators. Actually, they would die if they tried to live ONLY in the water or on earth, but they will not die, because they will live in both, because that's their purpose! Maybe they were born somehow on wet ground, but still not water.
*************
M*W: I thought they laid their eggs on land by digging a hole and sitting on their buried eggs? Also, do you know the crocodile is the only animal who instinctly pursues the human? There are a lot of animals that can kill humans, but the crocodile hunts humans!
*************
what768: Just because the bonestructure of the creatures are similar doesn't mean that they come from one ancestor. Everything comes from one singularity that was before the big bang, and because of this, all things are alike (in certain ways), because they have a common source. All things are for example formed from the same things, atoms, and those which are smaller than atoms; Everything s "energy", "motion", "vibration".
*************
M*W: I'm hearing some contradiction in your previous statement. I do agree with you, however that all things are formed from atoms, and everything is "energy, motion, and vibration."
*************
what768: Why do you think life started from only ONE "organism" in water? The plants doesn't come from a common ancestor, rather the earth was watered; grass, trees and flowers came up from the earth, with the help of the sun and the four winds. So I think there were countless small creatures born in water and earth at the same time. This I find a LOT more convincing that all life would come from one single organism - If one organism could come to life and reproduce itself, isn't it more likely that many of these organisms came to being in the same way all over the planet. In water and earth, because the wind blows the water to land (rain). So you say life started as a simple organism in water? Why only one of these? Why not more, a lot more?

I find it hard to think that one single organism could reproduce itself so much that it would be spread all over the earth. "Living" things can copy itself, not form into another beings! All things can evolve, but they never evolve into different species.

Tell me the exact process of a reptile forming into a bird!
*************
M*W: Reptiles came first, and when they learned to live on land, their scales turned into feather buds, and they grew reptile-looking feet. Then they flew.
*************
what768: Tell me why there are SO many different creatures on earth; insects, zebras, horses, apes, humans, parrots, miniature monkeys, butterflies, dinosaurs, snakes, beavers... why? They all come from one another? I can understand that a miniature man could've come from mud, and then he ate food and became bigger.. just as when a baby grows. Then they came bigger and reproduced themselves, until they were "big"... but that sounds a little weird... At least it might explain the "myth" of elves and small people! But if man came from apes, where did apes come from? There are many different "apes", like those miniature apes that are just 20 cm or so.
*************
M*W: Because each species reaches the ultimate maturity at different times. Apes are still evolving as are humans. There wasn't a single time when everything appeared. Every creature has his day. Humans are still evolving. I guarantee we won't be anything like we are now in the next 50,000 years. We will probably perfect OBEs, telekinesis, telepathy without using words to communicate. Science is able to prolong life as it is now. I think in 50,000 years or sooner, humanity will be able to cure all diseases so life will become eternal. That being the case, we may not even need reproduction.

I'm not sure what you are reading but the theory of evolution is about as close to scientific fact as you can come. Creationism on the other hand isn't science at all. You can not have an idea and then go out looking for evidence to support it and then call that science. Evidence leads to theories, theories don't lead to evidence.

Actually, this is completely wrong. It can go both ways. For example, relativity was just a theory until they decided to go out and obtain evidence for it. This evidence came from testing the theory.

The problem with creationism is that it has no evidence. Evolution does.

M*W: Mutations can occur through diet and the environment. If you put all these 'mice' in a large cage, when they multiplied beyond the capacity of their normal space, they would become homocidal mice and homosexual mice from the mutations.
*************
No, I don't believe in "mutations", that's the wrong word. The environment changes and thus the diet, many animals will die, and almost all lifeforms become different, but that's not mutation!
*************
M*W: I disagree. Mutations occur at the molecular level, and early man evolved from, say, from homo erectus to homo sapiens sapiens. Humanity is still evolving, and we still have a long way to go before we are complete to our best capacity. Then we will be called homo spirtus.
*************
I know that mutations occur at molecular level, that's what I said, but after the molecular level, after a new creature has evolved, the mutation stops. Everything is always "evolving" because living things constantly change, and when the environment changes, so must the species, otherwise they won't survive, and if it takes too much time, they die. It is possible that we have "evolved from" homo erectus, and yes, humans are far away from perfection, but we will come there.
*************
M*W: There are some extinct species of fish that have rudimentary legs as do some reptiles.
*************
This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.
*************
M*W: I thought they laid their eggs on land by digging a hole and sitting on their buried eggs? Also, do you know the crocodile is the only animal who instinctly pursues the human? There are a lot of animals that can kill humans, but the crocodile hunts humans!
*************
What does it mean that crocodiles hunt humans? Just that it senses its sinful nature?
*************
M*W: Reptiles came first, and when they learned to live on land, their scales turned into feather buds, and they grew reptile-looking feet. Then they flew.
*************
I will never understand how they "learned" to live on land or devolop wings, these "mutations" have nothing to do with reproduction, reproduction does only small changes but the environment changes all creatures, just as it changed the dinosaurs to these, smaller species. But that's not evolution.
*************
M*W: Because each species reaches the ultimate maturity at different times. Apes are still evolving as are humans. There wasn't a single time when everything appeared. Every creature has his day. Humans are still evolving. I guarantee we won't be anything like we are now in the next 50,000 years. We will probably perfect OBEs, telekinesis, telepathy without using words to communicate. Science is able to prolong life as it is now. I think in 50,000 years or sooner, humanity will be able to cure all diseases so life will become eternal. That being the case, we may not even need reproduction.
*************
I just think that "life" expresses itself in countless ways. I too believe that we will devolop higher psychic abilities. Moving the parts of our body is a kind of psychic ability. But who wants to live forever? Isn't it painful? People will still want things that they can't have, and this creates pain. However, I believe we will become more spiritual, we will not be so attached to our limited body, and I think we will stop reproducing ourselves, just like the "sons of God" did at their end times.

No, I don't believe in "mutations", that's the wrong word. The environment changes and thus the diet, many animals will die, and almost all lifeforms become different, but that's not mutation!
You don't "believe in them"?
But that's what "almost all lifeforms become different" is.
Is it just a matter of semantics?
Do you not like the word mutations because it conjures up some silly 1950's SciFi big bug movie?
Fact is, mutation DOES occur.
The word may have a negative connotation due to many different reasons.
If you agree that species change over many years, then yes, you DO believe in mutation.

First you say...
I know that mutations occur at molecular level, that's what I said, but after the molecular level, after a new creature has evolved, the mutation stops.
Then...
Everything is always "evolving" because living things constantly change, and when the environment changes, so must the species, otherwise they won't survive, and if it takes too much time, they die.
The two are just not reasonably consistent.
Mutations occurring at the molecular level, which you said you DO believe in, IS evolution.

It is possible that we have "evolved from" homo erectus, and yes, humans are far away from perfection, but we will come there.
This sounds liek another misconception.
Do you think that evolution is defined as something moving towards a state of perfection?

This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.
Yes, they obviously had them from birth.
That doesn't mean anything.
A fish isn't going to just jump out of water, land on the ground and start moseying down the street.
What do you think the purpose of the legs were?

I will never understand how they "learned" to live on land or devolop wings, these "mutations" have nothing to do with reproduction, reproduction does only small changes but the environment changes all creatures, just as it changed the dinosaurs to these, smaller species. But that's not evolution.
Yes, actually, it IS.
A single seemingly simple change of a creature's tail growing a few inches longer could take many thousands of generations to appear.
The changes that happen in species are very slight and compound over the generations.
You said it is concievable that humans evolved from homo-erectus-erectus, right?
Take all those many little changes that built up on expanded upon each other over all those years and apply that to a creature that has been making these tiny little changes over millions upon millions of generations.
Does it really seem that far fetched that one species would evolve from another?
What do you think seperates the different species?
Lots and lots of little differences.
They are all based on DNA, which, as we agree, can change.
Take any living thing (even plants) down to the most base level of life, and what do you have?
DNA.
Being that Chimpanzee DNA is very similar to human DNA, and we look quite different from the outside, what really seperates us?
Perhaps a few thousand generations of little changes brought about by differing environments, combined with molecular mutation, along with pathogens and whatever else may change the DNA over time?
If not, why not?
You are a mixture of traits from both of your parents, plus your environment, right?
That is evolution of the species.

A few things.
Evolution is not limited to or bound by Darwin's theories of what happens.
Evolution is a scientific fact, the ways and means is up for debate, and there is not a single accepted theory that explains it all.



You don't believe in "mutation", but you know cells experience mutation.
You know that species are always "evolving", but you don't believe in evolution.
You argued against fish with limbs by stating that they had them from birth.

Do you think that Evolution Theory states:
One day this Lizard decides it wants to learn to fly so it can travel to warmer climates with a fresh food supply in the winter.
So, the Lizard's scales split apart and formed into feathers.
After that, the Lizard's bones lost mass and he jumped off a cliff and flew away.
Is that your idea of what scientists are trying to put out?

If so, you have some things wrong.
If not, please explain to me what you think Evolution Theory DOES state, because I am at a loss due to what I think one inconsistency after another in your arguments.
I really think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what scientists refer to when they say "Evolution".

I have never seen a creature form into another, bigger creature!
I have a friend who's about a foot taller than both of his parents.

No, I don't believe in "mutations"
You don't have a choice, mutations aren't something you can choose whether or not to believe in, go to school.

This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.
You seem to be expecting 1 individual organism to "evolve" in front of your eyes.
Lamarck thought that was how evolution worked in the 1700s or something, you don't sound like you've been in a coma for 300 years so what is your excuse for having such an outdated, faulty and weak understanding of evolution?

Break for medicine woman;
Also, do you know the crocodile is the only animal who instinctly pursues the human? There are a lot of animals that can kill humans, but the crocodile hunts humans!
That's not true at all, please no one pay attention to that statement it is incorrect.

Back to what768;
I will never understand how they "learned" to live on land or devolop wings, these "mutations" have nothing to do with reproduction, reproduction does only small changes but the environment changes all creatures, just as it changed the dinosaurs to these, smaller species. But that's not evolution.
Medicine woman really isn't helping you.
Fish that lived in areas prone to drought developed the ability to gulp air of the surface of the water for their source of oxygen because as their ponds would dry up the water would become more and more stagnent and devoid of oxygen. There are many descendents of the original "labyrinth fish" still around today, the famous siamese fighting fish for one.
This is where the "lung" all land vertebrates possess today originally evolved.

Sometimes the ponds these lunged fish were in would dry up completely, many would die, natural selection favoured those which could riggle their way to another body of water. As time went on for some strains of fish, riggling wasn't good enough and strong boned fins that helped them drag themselves to new bodies of water were favoured in populations of fish living in drought proned areas.

As time went on eventually a creature evolved which actually exploited the vast array of food on land which there was no competition over acquiring (insects etc). It would still frequently go back to the water to remoisten itself and lay it's eggs etc, but it would spend a fair bit of time on land. This was the dawn of amphibians and indeed the dawn of land dwelling vertebrates.

There were many niches available for land vertebrates as there was none so a varied array of amphibians evolved. Eventually one ancestral line of amphibian became more and more specialised to life on land and eventully removed the shackles of needing to moisten itself in water, it developed the ability to acquire it's needed moisture by ingesting water through it's mouth. It developed a hard scaley covering which didn't lose moisture so quickly, etc, the dawn of reptiles.

Reptiles were an exceptionally successful design that ruled the earth for 100s of millions of years.
Something unusual ended the dominance of the dinosaurs, it's not clear, there are a few theories.
But one reptile developed a way to regulate it's own body temperature without relying on the sun, it also took care of it's young to increase their chances of survival, even feeding their young with "milk" from their own body. This allowed for creatures to be such that they required "learning" to fully become competent at living the lifestyle for their species. It allowed for creatures to be more complex and adaptable.
We were seeing the dawn of mammals. At this stage they were monotremes, seemingly half reptile half mammal. They still laid eggs, and they weren't quite so good at regulating their own body tempereture as modern placental mammals are.
We can see descendents of this transitional group of animals in australias echidna and platypus. Mammals which lay eggs like reptiles.
Eventually certain evolutionary lines found it beneficial to birth live young, and marsupials arose. Later a line developed the placenta method of growing young large inside their bodies, and modern placental mammals arose.
I could go on, I'll explain how mammals went from small little shrew like creatures to humans if you really want. Just ask.

Not only does the modern animal kingdom back up this history, so does the fossil record, and dna testing.
Nobody with an understanding of evolution doesn't believe in it, it's that simple.

All the most powerfull human minds on the planet "believe" (not that it requires "belief" to a rational person) in evolution. What flaws do you, as someone who doesn't understand evolution, think you are going to find that all the best minds on earth who intimately understand evolution haven't found?
It's scrutinized brutally but it's just too damn perfect.
And frankly it's an insult for you to even suggest that it "doesn't make sense", if it didn't make sense science would pay it no mind, much akin to how they treat creationism which has no scientific backing or any form of evidence whatsoever supporting it and is flagrantly a defiance of the laws of nature and reads like bad primitive fantasy.
If there was even a slight problem with evolution some university or scientist would have found that problem, and the rest of the scientific community would have acknowledged the validity of that problem and then wiped evolution off the board as something that didn't happen.
You aren't going to find a significant flaw which will render the theory invalid, anything that doesn't make sense in your head is a problem in your head, not a problem with the theory of evolution.
Please keep that in mind, as it's quite frsutrating for people who understand evolution to listen to an ignoramous carrying on.

Imagine someone saying the earth is flat, but you know it isn't, and they're saying "I don't believe the earth is round", you'd be like "you're not allowed to not believe idiot" right? Well thats exactly what it's like.

Actually, this is completely wrong. It can go both ways. For example, relativity was just a theory until they decided to go out and obtain evidence for it. This evidence came from testing the theory.

Given I don't really know what I'm talking about but I'm pretty sure the theory of relativity came from mathmatical evidence and didn't just pop out of someone's mouth one day. Whereas creationism pretty much just came from religious texts and thus I agree has no evidence.

Consider the plants, how they grow. The forest, how do you think it came into being? Do you think they all come from one tree, which reproduced itself by its seeds and sow the whole earth with trees, not its own kind, but also another kinds of trees? No, it wasn't like that. The whole earth was watered by the oceans: plants, trees and flowers came from the earth, everywhere, manifesting according to circumstances. In my country, here in north, the trees are small, but in some countries there are gigantic trees. It is like this with the animals too, they are the same kind of living things as the plants. There were born insects, animals and birds formed from the earth and water, everywhere, and they didn't have a certain ancestor.

Have you thought about how the first living thing came into being? Do you really think there was only one of these living things? If one could come into being, it is very likely that there were billions of living organisms created in the oceans at the same time. And because they were created in water, it means that they can be created in earth too, because the water ascends to heaven and the wind blows it to the land, and where ever the earth was watered, life came into being. Life emerges from the earth and water, and the wind and the sun makes it possible. Because many 'first living things' were created at the same time in the oceans, many different species were created of these, which lived under different circumstances.

Look at the rabbits ears. They have mutated, it has devoloped great ears because of circumstances, it has to listen much, to see if someone is going to eat it. Because it had to listen, it devoloped great ears. But that's the only mutation that the willpower can make. It can't form a creature to a totally different kind, and if it would, the old rabbits with the small ears wouldn't survive, because they needed the great ears. These mutations have occured because the rabbits have moved to different contries with certain different dangerous species. In the same way as the rabbit, man will create a great brain, like the ancient egyptians, because he uses his brain a lot. I don't know if apes can mutate to humans, ever, because they are so much different.

Now, there are other, greater kinds of changes of the environments and circumstances of the earth. Imagine what would happen if the earth's rotation would change a bit, or if the moon would take distance from the earth. This is how the dinosaurs died, because the circumstances of the earth changed so drastically and they didn't the natural time to change their bodies. From this, many new kinds of species evolved, but there were certain animals that didn't need to change themselves, like certain fishes, some of the animals only needed to make themselves smaller.

This has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection never makes new species, it only perfects an old species which needs completion because of small changes of environment and circumstances, in the future, it gives us a greater brain for example, when all human races have melted into one divine race.
---
Once there also lived humans on earth, which had a much bigger body than us; from this comes the myth of giants. But these humans were much higher devoloped than the people of today. Their life didn't include egoistic behaviour, and they have also played a role in devoloping the humans of today. They have created the great pyramid in Egypt with a symbolic meaning. Because we have used slaves, we also think that they used millions of slaves to make the great pyramid, but this is not true. Instead they let the natural forces to make them, for them. In a distant future we will also be able to control matter, make energy to thicker energy, any kinds of energy and also control gravity and even the life itself. But these giants, which were called the Sons of God, didn't always use machines to control the weather and other natural forces, but they knew that which resided inside themselves, the life, the self, was the greatest power, and everything else were just tools to express this.

Once there also lived humans on earth, which had a much bigger body than us; from this comes the myth of giants. But these humans were much higher devoloped than the people of today. Their life didn't include egoistic behaviour, and they have also played a role in devoloping the humans of today. They have created the great pyramid in Egypt with a symbolic meaning. Because we have used slaves, we also think that they used millions of slaves to make the great pyramid, but this is not true. Instead they let the natural forces to make them, for them. In a distant future we will also be able to control matter, make energy to thicker energy, any kinds of energy and also control gravity and even the life itself. But these giants, which were called the Sons of God, didn't always use machines to control the weather and other natural forces, but they knew that which resided inside themselves, the life, the self, was the greatest power, and everything else were just tools to express this.

You cannot possibly be serious here. This is all complete bullshit.

No, I don't believe in "mutations", that's the wrong word. The environment changes and thus the diet, many animals will die, and almost all lifeforms become different, but that's not mutation!

What are you trying to debate here? Whether you personally believe in it or not, doesn't make it any less a fact.

I know that mutations occur at molecular level, that's what I said

... You just said you didn't 'believe' in mutation.

but after the molecular level, after a new creature has evolved, the mutation stops.

Here is a lot of the problem. It's as if you think one animal mutates and thus = evolution, which is not true. Nor would it imply that once it has 'mutated', that it wont mutate further.

This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.

Whales also have leg bones. These are merely "left overs", just like our wisdom teeth, tail bones, and goose bumps.

But that's not evolution.

Well as you obviously know, kindly tell me: what is evolution?

Moving the parts of our body is a kind of psychic ability.

No it isn't.

But who wants to live forever? Isn't it painful?

Every single christian I've ever encountered.

People will still want things that they can't have, and this creates pain.

Or god.

I have explained it, but you have not understood...

You should be banned.

David F.: I have done a lot of reading and what I read is astounding - evolution is more faith than fact.

I can't prove where life came from. There is no logical explaination. In a fit of anti-logic, scientists came up with this idea of evolution more than a century ago. The problem is that all attempts to prove evolution have actually gone the other way and disproved the theory. Thus, science has no idea at all where life came from.
*************
M*W: Science has proven evolution. I'm sorry you can't understand it.
*************

No MW, evolution doesn't explain where life came from.

Dave

what768, I'm going to give you some advice. I suggest you pick up your phone book, look up a lawyer and tell him/her that you wish to sue the State, because the State has obviously failed you terribly in how they educated you.

I don't believe in education.

And it shows.

davewhite04: No MW, evolution doesn't explain where life came from.
*************
M*W: Then you explain it, and we'll discuss it.

M*W: Then you explain it, and we'll discuss it.

Abiogenesis = Naturalistic Origins of Life (Study)
Evolution = Diversity of Life (Scientific Theory)

Dave

You should be banned.

Yes he should. Now even I am sick and I should be the last to be complaining.

david f, you seem to be the authority on evolution,
can you explain, lets say a germ changes into a stronger germ, how this happens.
or lets say a horse, has it's way with a donkey what happens.
i think you will find this is evolution in process, this is how things changed from one thing to another, and it was a lot further back then 6000 years millions to be exact.

if what you have to say, is not going to change the silence ,dont speak.
Yes, I'm tired of this argument. I have made it so many times and proven that Evolution is wrong so many times, yet it still keeps coming back - like a stuborn piece of TP on my shoe.

Germs do not get stronger. First, the word Germ doesn't mean anything since it is a generic clasification for all of virus and bacteria which might cause sickness in humans. Viruses become more resistant to current drugs - that is not a description of stronger. Second, living organisms do adapt to their environment, which some call Micro-Evolution. I strongly support the truth of Micro-Evolution. This, however, is a far far cry from Macro-Evolution - the rising of life from non-life and the splitting or growth from single-celled organisms to the diversification of the animal kingdom. A virus becomes resistant to drugs because those drugs litterally affect the genetic code of the virus to kill it. When the virus replicates, there can be mistakes so that a genetic A is changed to a genetic C for example - DNA is encoded with amino-acids which are given the names A, C, G & T which is the first letter of their chemical names. Virus replication seems to be especially loose and suseptible to these errors. Changes in the DNA usually causes a fatal flaw that kills the organisms, but occasionally such changes occur and still allow the organisms to exist. When millions of these changes occur as viruses replicate, the change can sometimes cause the DNA to change at just the point where our medicines kill the virus DNA. If the DNA changes in just that way, then the Virus becomes resistant to medicine - not stronger, just different - and we then have to go find a new medicine for the new DNA configuration. All of this has nothing to do with the rise of life from non-life and does nothing to prove Evolution.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about horses and donkeys?

davewhite04: No MW, evolution doesn't explain where life came from.
*************
M*W: Then you explain it, and we'll discuss it.
That's the whole point. Nothing in all of science does anything to explain why we are here, why life exists. It is miraculous and impossible - yet somehow, somewhere it occured.

I cannot give ANY explaination for life. The creation story is as good as any and does not disagree with what we see around us. Is not-disagreeing the same as proof - no, and I won't try to pretend it is.

That's the whole point. Nothing in all of science does anything to explain why we are here, why life exists. It is miraculous and impossible - yet somehow, somewhere it occured.

I cannot give ANY explaination for life. The creation story is as good as any and does not disagree with what we see around us. Is not-disagreeing the same as proof - no, and I won't try to pretend it is.

Neither is the African creation story, or the Native American creation story, or the..

What an ambiguous load of.

Neither is the African creation story, or the Native American creation story, or the..

What an ambiguous load of.
I hope I have never given the impression I could prove the biblical story. I hope I have continued to stress that NO EXPLAINATION is satisfactory to those who insist on proof - not even the biblical story.

If you want to believe the African creation story - go ahead. I will stick with the biblical story, as much as anything because it is in the bible with other things I believe. Proximity to the 10 commandments is key to me, but that's just me.

It is hard for people to see that the ten commandments are a delight to us that believe, because the very same law brings death to those who have not accepted Jesus. We are assured of our salvation and therefore the power of sin is no more for us that believe. The law that once brought us death is now opened up to us as something thoroughly holy and righteous even though we are still sinners. We live by His grace. The God that says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" is the same God that says to us "My Grace is sufficient for thee". When we believe we fulfill the first commandment and therefore fulfill the whole law. We no longer live under the law but rather we fulfill the law through belief in Jesus who's blood was the fulfillment of the law also. We accept that we are sinners, and God pours out His grace upon us because of His great love for us. When our hearts are hard to the One who says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me", we face the full penalty of the law which is death.

It is amazing grace. And it is the Good News of The Christian faith that we wish to share with you. It is up to each man to decide whether they have other gods before the Lord, although I tell you there aren't really any other gods but the Lord.

peace

c20

c20H25N3o: It is hard for people to see that the ten commandments are a delight to us that believe, because the very same law brings death to those who have not accepted Jesus.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus!
*************
c20: We are assured of our salvation and therefore the power of sin is no more for us that believe.
*************
M*W: Boy, are you ever wrong! The 'power of sin' is up to the local, state or federal authorities (in the USA). God has nothing to do with laws.
*************
c20: The law that once brought us death is now opened up to us as something thoroughly holy and righteous even though we are still sinners.
*************
M*W: What kind of god would have created a world filled with sinners?
*************
c20: We live by His grace. The God that says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" is the same God that says to us "My Grace is sufficient for thee".
*************
M*W: The same god? Moses said, "Thou shalt have no other god's before me...". MOSES, the Egyptian Pharaoh -- MOSES. Moses took the ark on top of the mountain (which was custom in his day), and he etched the stone tablets with the welding fire of the ark. They couldn't have been in the language of the day, because Moses was the only one who could interpret the etchings. That wasn't any god, that was the ark-light. Because the ark created an electrical type fire, Moses believed the sun was contained in the ark. Of course, when any fool touched the electrical fire, they got zapped -- to death! The box that contained the sun (or what Moses thought was Aten) was worshipped by the tribe Habiru. Moses also told the nomads that he was god. He wanted the Habiru to have no other gods than him -- Moses.
*************
c20: When we believe we fulfill the first commandment and therefore fulfill the whole law. We no longer live under the law but rather we fulfill the law through belief in Jesus who's blood was the fulfillment of the law also. We accept that we are sinners, and God pours out His grace upon us because of His great love for us. When our hearts are hard to the One who says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me", we face the full penalty of the law which is death.
*************
M*W: Do you believe in the law of Moses? Please explain by cited research how Jesus' blood fulfills Moses' law.
*************
c20: It is amazing grace. And it is the Good News of The Christian faith that we wish to share with you. It is up to each man to decide whether they have other gods before the Lord, although I tell you there aren't really any other gods but the Lord.
*************
M*W: So you are admitting to it that your aim is to preach to us about the christian faith? You've just admitted to your one and only reason for being here on sciforums. Do you realize how offensive you are to non-christians, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Shintos, Jews, and even other CHRISTIANS? Everyone is entitled to believe in the god of their choice or no god, if they choose. You are forcing your delusional belief on the rest of us. Since you are unable to respect the views of others, you should put all of those who are non-christians on IGNORE and just post back and forth with Jenyar, Adstar, and David F. The rest of us will join in if we feel like it -- or maybe not.

Concerning Microevolution and Macroevolution. Please allow me to post a rather long quote:

LITTLE JUMPS, BIG JUMPS
Suppose a 4-foot wide ditch in your back yard, running to the horizon in both directions, separates your property from that of your neighbor’s. If one day you met him in your yard and asked how he got there, you would have no reason to doubt the answer, “I jumped over the ditch.” If the ditch were 8 feet wide and he gave the same answer, you would be impressed with his athletic ability. If the ditch were 15 feet wide, you might become suspicious and ask him to jump again while you watched; if he declined, pleading a sprained knee, you would harbor your doubts but wouldn’t be certain that he was just telling a tale. If the “ditch” were actually a canyon 100 feet wide, however, you would not entertain for a moment the bald assertion that he jumped across.

But suppose your neighbor – a clever man – qualifies his claim. He did not come in one jump. Rather, he says, in the canyon there were a number of buttes, no more than 10 feet apart from one another; he jumped from one narrowly spaced butte to another to reach your side. Glancing toward the canyon, you tell your neighbor that you see no buttes, just a wide chasm separating your yard from his. He agrees, but explains that it took him years and years to come over. During that time buttes occasionally arose in the chasm, and he progressed as they popped up. After he left a butte it usually eroded pretty quickly and crumbled back into the canyon. Very dubious, but with no easy way to prove him wrong, you change the subject to baseball.

This little story teaches several lessons. First, the word jump can be offered as an explanation of how someone crossed a barrier but the explanation can range from completely convincing to totally inadequate depending on the details (such as how wide the barrier is). Second, long journeys can be made much more plausible if they are explained as a series of smaller jumps rather than one great leap. And third, in the absence of evidence of such smaller jumps, it is very difficult to prove right or wrong someone who asserts that stepping stones existed in the past but have disappeared.

Of course, the allegory of jumps across narrow ditches versus canyons can be applied to evolution. The word evolution has been invoked to explain tiny changes in organisms as well as huge changes. These are often given separate names: Roughly speaking, microevolution describes changes that can be made in one or a few small jumps, whereas macroevolution describes changes that appear to require large jumps.

The proposal by Darwin that even relatively tiny changes could occur in nature was a great conceptual advance; the observation of such changes was a hugely gratifying confirmation of his intuition. Darwin saw similar but not identical species of finches on the various Galapogos Islands and theorized that they descended from a common ancestor. Recently some scientists from Princeton actually observed the average beak size of finch populations changing over the course of a few years. Earlier it was shown that a number of dark- versus light-colored moths in a population changed as the environment went from sooty to clean. Similarly, birds introduced into North America by European settlers have diversified into several distinct groups. In recent decades it has been possible to gain evidence for microevolution on a molecular scale. For instance, viruses such as the one that causes AIDS mutate their coats in order to evade the human immune system. Disease-causing bacteria have made a comeback as strains evolved the ability to defend against antibiotics. Many other examples could be cited.

On a small scale, Darwin’s theory has triumphed; it is now about as controversial as an athlete’s assertion that he or she could jump over a four-foot ditch. But it is at the level of macroevolution – of large jumps – that the theory evokes skepticism. Many people have followed Darwin in proposing that huge changes can be broken down into plausible, small steps over great periods of time. Persuasive evidence to support that position, however, has not been forthcoming. Nonetheless, like a neighbor’s story about vanishing buttes, it has been difficult to evaluate whether the elusive and ill-defined small steps could exist . . . until now.

With the advent of modern biochemistry we are now able to look at the rock-bottom level of life. We can now make an informed evaluation of whether the putative small steps required to produce large evolutionary changes can ever get small enough. You will see in this book that the canyons separating everyday life forms have their counterparts in the canyons that separate biological systems on a microscopic scale. Like a fractal pattern in mathematics, where a motif is repeated even as you look at smaller and smaller scales, unbridgeable chasms occur even at the tiniest level of life.

-Michael J. Behe – Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University. Darwin’s Black Box; p. 13-15.

Evolutionists have always maintained that as we probe into the dark mysteries of the molecular and subatomic that life will become ever simpler and that these jumps from one animal kind to another will become easy and obvious. Quite the opposite has happened. The further in we delve, the more complicated things have become. We are now at the smallest level, molecular bio-chemistry, and the necessary jumps from one life form to another have if anything actually increased in scope, showing the utter impossibility of macroevolution.

c20H25N3o: It is hard for people to see that the ten commandments are a delight to us that believe, because the very same law brings death to those who have not accepted Jesus.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus!
*************
Matthew 19
19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. Notice that Jesus is quoting the 10 commandments.
c20: We are assured of our salvation and therefore the power of sin is no more for us that believe.
*************
M*W: Boy, are you ever wrong! The 'power of sin' is up to the local, state or federal authorities (in the USA). God has nothing to do with laws.
*************
c20: The law that once brought us death is now opened up to us as something thoroughly holy and righteous even though we are still sinners.
*************
M*W: What kind of god would have created a world filled with sinners?
*************
God did not create a world full of sinners. Adam became a sinner.

C2o is right. We all break the law and the penalty for sin is death. We are still guilty but we don't have to pay the price since Jesus paid it for us. That doesn't mean we are freed from the necessity of obeying the 10 commandments. It only means breaking God's law is no longer a captial crime.
c20: We live by His grace. The God that says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" is the same God that says to us "My Grace is sufficient for thee".
*************
M*W: The same god? Moses said, "Thou shalt have no other god's before me...". MOSES, the Egyptian Pharaoh -- MOSES. Moses took the ark on top of the mountain (which was custom in his day), and he etched the stone tablets with the welding fire of the ark. They couldn't have been in the language of the day, because Moses was the only one who could interpret the etchings. That wasn't any god, that was the ark-light. Because the ark created an electrical type fire, Moses believed the sun was contained in the ark. Of course, when any fool touched the electrical fire, they got zapped -- to death! The box that contained the sun (or what Moses thought was Aten) was worshipped by the tribe Habiru. Moses also told the nomads that he was god. He wanted the Habiru to have no other gods than him -- Moses.
*************
Nice story but God first spoke the 10 commandments to all the people from the top of the mount and then called Moses to the top of the mount to get the tablets (so Moses couldn't cheat and change the rules). God did not tell Moses how to build the ark (measurements & materials) until after the 10 commandments had already been delivered etched into the stone tablets (God actually did this twice).

c20: When we believe we fulfill the first commandment and therefore fulfill the whole law. We no longer live under the law but rather we fulfill the law through belief in Jesus who's blood was the fulfillment of the law also. We accept that we are sinners, and God pours out His grace upon us because of His great love for us. When our hearts are hard to the One who says "Thou shalt have no other God's before me", we face the full penalty of the law which is death.
*************
M*W: Do you believe in the law of Moses? Please explain by cited research how Jesus' blood fulfills Moses' law.
*************
c20: It is amazing grace. And it is the Good News of The Christian faith that we wish to share with you. It is up to each man to decide whether they have other gods before the Lord, although I tell you there aren't really any other gods but the Lord.
*************
M*W: So you are admitting to it that your aim is to preach to us about the christian faith? You've just admitted to your one and only reason for being here on sciforums. Do you realize how offensive you are to non-christians, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Shintos, Jews, and even other CHRISTIANS? Everyone is entitled to believe in the god of their choice or no god, if they choose. You are forcing your delusional belief on the rest of us. Since you are unable to respect the views of others, you should put all of those who are non-christians on IGNORE and just post back and forth with Jenyar, Adstar, and David F. The rest of us will join in if we feel like it -- or maybe not.
I kind of think discussing religion is what a Religion Forum is for. It is not for attacking religion - that's what they do on all the other forums.

c20: We are assured of our salvation and therefore the power of sin is no more for us that believe.
*************
M*W: Boy, are you ever wrong! The 'power of sin' is up to the local, state or federal authorities (in the USA). God has nothing to do with laws.

MW. I am putting this reply in a separate post since it is kind of a separate topic.

You seem to be saying that the only evil is what the Law dictates as evil. However, you should know that our own law does not see things this way.

There are two Latin phrases which are pertinent here:Malum in se "Wrong in itself" — a crime that is inherently wrong; cf. malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum "Prohibited wrong" — something that society decided to forbid, but is not inherently evil... ref (http://www.free-definition.com/List-of-Latin-phrases.html#M)
The word Malum means what you are calling Evil. There are two kinds of laws then - 1) Laws that are Evil in themselves and 2) Laws that are Evil because man decides they are so. You seem to be trying to put all laws into the second category when some, like murder, are obviously in the first category. Where did this category come from? Certainly not from the minds of men. Even if we somehow become so corrupt as a society to believe that murder is not evil, this category will still exist. What else might go in this first category? We Christians take the first category to be the 10 Commandments.

There are two kinds of laws then - 1) Laws that are Evil in themselves and 2) Laws that are Evil because man decides they are so. You seem to be trying to put all laws into the second category when some, like murder, are obviously in the first category. Where did this category come from? Certainly not from the minds of men. Even if we somehow become so corrupt as a society to believe that murder is not evil, this category will still exist. What else might go in this first category? We Christians take the first category to be the 10 Commandments.

David, let's say that somehow, you know that a person is going to kill ten innocent people tonight. You also know that, unfortunately, the only way to prevent him from doing so is to murder him. Is murder "obviously" in the first category now?

Yes, I'm tired of this argument. I have made it so many times and proven that Evolution is wrong so many times

Lol, as you have shown many times now, you don't even know what 'evolution' is - and as such, saying you've proved it wrong is clearly nonsense. However, you always have the opportunity to submit your findings to a scientific journal where they can be tested. Failing that, try Sky News or something.

Lol, as you have shown many times now, you don't even know what 'evolution' is - and as such, saying you've proved it wrong is clearly nonsense. However, you always have the opportunity to submit your findings to a scientific journal where they can be tested. Failing that, try Sky News or something.
oh, oh...HAHAHA I can't help it... you just make me laugh!

Please tell me another whopper :D

David, let's say that somehow, you know that a person is going to kill ten innocent people tonight. You also know that, unfortunately, the only way to prevent him from doing so is to murder him. Is murder "obviously" in the first category now?
I don't think it is ever right to punish someone before they do evil, only after. I don't think there is anything wrong with self-defense or the defense of others, but that would be during the event, not before. I can't conceive of your situation, and besides, I don't subscribe to the doctrine of situation ethics.

oh, oh...HAHAHA I can't help it... you just make me laugh!

Please tell me another whopper

Well go on then, enough with the mouth.. Astound the world, present your findings for the entire planet to see. After all, you have "proven it wrong".

What are you waiting for?

I'm waiting for you to read the dozens of posts I have made on this subject and for you to accord me the same curtesy you demand from me - to actually read the references and links I provide. For a start, how about the post this morning concerning Long and Short Jumps.

Never mind, I will not continue to strain your intellect. I can't prove anything to someone who stops their ears and yells lalalalalalalala when I show truth.

I'm waiting for you to read the dozens of posts I have made on this subject and for you to accord me the same curtesy you demand from me - to actually read the references and links I provide. For a start, how about the post this morning concerning Long and Short Jumps.

Never mind, I will not continue to strain your intellect. I can't prove anything to someone who stops their ears and yells lalalalalalalala when I show truth.

Well yes, I am a busy man. It is quite a decision for me to make, and in honesty my work must come first. However, if I was in the same position as you, whereby I could disprove an entire section of science to the entire world, work would have to take a back seat.

However, all that aside.. I have read and responded to every post you have made regarding the subject, until such point where I had to let you know of your misunderstandings concerning what 'evolution' actually means. There is no point whatsoever me debating you over a topic that you 'think' is evolution, but actually isn't. Once you learn what it means, we can progress.

Never mind, I will not continue to strain your intellect. I can't prove anything to someone who stops their ears and yells lalalalalalalala when I show truth.

Why so personal? This does not concern me, but every human on the planet. Surely the way you see me would be inconsequential to that?

Here you are shouting 'truth' and making wild and purely fallacious statements that you have disproved something.

A) You don't even understand the meaning of that something, and

B) If you did, and you had honestly disproven it - then talking to me is a waste of time. Try CNN instead.

Let me guess though.. at the end of the day it all comes down to that mouth of yours once more?

Honestly David, what are you waiting for? Astound the world.

Well yes, I am a busy man. It is quite a decision for me to make, and in honesty my work must come first. However, if I was in the same position as you, whereby I could disprove an entire section of science to the entire world, work would have to take a back seat.

However, all that aside.. I have read and responded to every post you have made regarding the subject, until such point where I had to let you know of your misunderstandings concerning what 'evolution' actually means. There is no point whatsoever me debating you over a topic that you 'think' is evolution, but actually isn't. Once you learn what it means, we can progress.

Why so personal? This does not concern me, but every human on the planet. Surely the way you see me would be inconsequential to that?

Here you are shouting 'truth' and making wild and purely fallacious statements that you have disproved something.

A) You don't even understand the meaning of that something, and

B) If you did, and you had honestly disproven it - then talking to me is a waste of time. Try CNN instead.

Let me guess though.. at the end of the day it all comes down to that mouth of yours once more?

Honestly David, what are you waiting for? Astound the world.
OK, I will once again try to teach you something. I understand your lack of understanding even the basics of the science - coming as you do from a non-scientific background. First, as you say, we must define the meaning of the word Evolution, so I will copy from a previous post:
Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community.
-Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University, Darwin's Black Box, p.x. ISBN 0-684-83493-6
or how about this one: In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 ref (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html)
I use the word in its scientific/biological sense. Can we agree that this is the definition of the word, Evolution?

Im trying to go slow here so you can understand... Once we agree we are discussing Biological Evolution, we can next split Evolution into two basic pieces - Microevolution and Macroevolution. For a good definition, please see my previous post on this thread concerning Big Jumps and Little Jumps.

Am I allowed to rant a little? I feel like I am talking to a child here. I know you have great faith in this topic without any true proof (which makes this your religion) but you aren't listening and you never have any logical comments to make. Your only answers are "Why" and "Because" which is what I would expect from a three-year old. OTOH, you could just be trying to heckle, which you often do, and disrupt simply to cause chaos. Ah, I see, you are making a joke. [end of rant]

Anyway, go find a dictionary and an elementary biology book. When you have the faintest idea of the subject, I will be happy to continue this discussion.

M*W: Again, the gospel of matthew was commissioned or even written by Paul. Paul is historically known to be a liar. Therefore, nothing in the NT can be believed. The Ten Commandments came out of Egyptian, written by Moses the exiled Pharaol, not God! Those were Moses' words and he wrote them as if he were Aten, the Sun God. The sources you've used are incorrect.
*************
David F.: C2o is right. We all break the law and the penalty for sin is death. We are still guilty but we don't have to pay the price since Jesus paid it for us. That doesn't mean we are freed from the necessity of obeying the 10 commandments. It only means breaking God's law is no longer a captial crime.
*************
M*W: Until you can prove to us with clear and compelling evidence that all have sinned and all are expected to die, but Jesus saved them. Where are they now? Has any departed one contacted you that they were alive in heaven? I assure you, dead is dead.
*************
David F.: Nice story but God first spoke the 10 commandments to all the people from the top of the mount and then called Moses to the top of the mount to get the tablets (so Moses couldn't cheat and change the rules). God did not tell Moses how to build the ark (measurements & materials) until after the 10 commandments had already been delivered etched into the stone tablets (God actually did this twice).
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments were written by Moses and interpreted by Moses to the Habiru. The ark was nothing more than a gold box that contained an ancient battery.
*************
David F.: I kind of think discussing religion is what a Religion Forum is for. It is not for attacking religion - that's what they do on all the other forums.
*************
M*W: This is a religion forum, but it is not a christian forum. The majority of members on this forum are atheists and free-thinkers who don't believe in christianity. There are many christian forums as Gravity has shown, and I believe you, c20, Adstar, Jenyar, and Lori_7, etc., would be better served and happier on a forum that was complementary to your faith. The non-christians on this forum are looking for evidence through biblical research and archeology. Unless you can provide truthful evidence by unbiased resources, you are just spinning your wheels here. Birds of a feather should flock together.

David F.: MW. I am putting this reply in a separate post since it is kind of a separate topic.

You seem to be saying that the only evil is what the Law dictates as evil. However, you should know that our own law does not see things this way.
*************
M*W: Again, David, you have misconstrued what I have said. As a law-abiding citizen, I respect the laws of my country and my state. Not all laws are fair, but I abide by them. I don't know where you got that I think law is evil. The laws are made to protect us -- not defeat us!
*************
David F.: There are two Latin phrases which are pertinent here:Malum in se "Wrong in itself" — a crime that is inherently wrong; cf. malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum "Prohibited wrong" — something that society decided to forbid, but is not inherently evil... ref (http://www.free-definition.com/List-of-Latin-phrases.html#M)
The word Malum means what you are calling Evil. There are two kinds of laws then - 1) Laws that are Evil in themselves and 2) Laws that are Evil because man decides they are so. You seem to be trying to put all laws into the second category when some, like murder, are obviously in the first category. Where did this category come from? Certainly not from the minds of men. Even if we somehow become so corrupt as a society to believe that murder is not evil, this category will still exist. What else might go in this first category? We Christians take the first category to be the 10 Commandments.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments were good guidelines for the people of Moses' day, but I am not saying that it's okay to murder or commit adultery, etc. today. Our laws were taken directly from the Ten Commandments which were basic guidelines to live by. I don't have a problem with today's laws that I believe we all should follow widely. But, the Ten Commandments were Egyptian rules for the Habiru in the desert. Moses was losing control of the Habiru, and they were running amok. The Ten Commandments were written by Moses, not God, because Moses thought the Ark to be God. Why must you try to link me with evil, when I am actually an officer of the court (family law). There are always two sides to every story, and they both need to be heard. Just like there are two sides to christianity. Both sides need to be heard -- the defense of christianity, and the prosecution of christianity. You already know what side I'm on.

David F.: MW. I am putting this reply in a separate post since it is kind of a separate topic.

You seem to be saying that the only evil is what the Law dictates as evil. However, you should know that our own law does not see things this way.
*************
M*W: Again, David, you have misconstrued what I have said. As a law-abiding citizen, I respect the laws of my country and my state. Not all laws are fair, but I abide by them. I don't know where you got that I think law is evil. The laws are made to protect us -- not defeat us!
*************
David F.: There are two Latin phrases which are pertinent here:Malum in se "Wrong in itself" — a crime that is inherently wrong; cf. malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum "Prohibited wrong" — something that society decided to forbid, but is not inherently evil... ref (http://www.free-definition.com/List-of-Latin-phrases.html#M)
The word Malum means what you are calling Evil. There are two kinds of laws then - 1) Laws that are Evil in themselves and 2) Laws that are Evil because man decides they are so. You seem to be trying to put all laws into the second category when some, like murder, are obviously in the first category. Where did this category come from? Certainly not from the minds of men. Even if we somehow become so corrupt as a society to believe that murder is not evil, this category will still exist. What else might go in this first category? We Christians take the first category to be the 10 Commandments.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments were good guidelines for the people of Moses' day, but I am not saying that it's okay to murder or commit adultery, etc. today. Our laws were taken directly from the Ten Commandments which were basic guidelines to live by. I don't have a problem with today's laws that I believe we all should follow widely. But, the Ten Commandments were Egyptian rules for the Habiru in the desert. Moses was losing control of the Habiru, and they were running amok. The Ten Commandments were written by Moses, not God, because Moses thought the Ark to be God. Why must you try to link me with evil, when I am actually an officer of the court (family law). There are always two sides to every story, and they both need to be heard. Just like there are two sides to christianity. Both sides need to be heard -- the defense of christianity, and the prosecution of christianity. You already know what side I'm on.
I see. While I disagree with the revision of history you present, I now understand your point of view. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

M*W: This is a religion forum, but it is not a christian forum. The majority of members on this forum are atheists and free-thinkers who don't believe in christianity. There are many christian forums as Gravity has shown, and I believe you, c20, Adstar, Jenyar, and Lori_7, etc., would be better served and happier on a forum that was complementary to your faith. The non-christians on this forum are looking for evidence through biblical research and archeology. Unless you can provide truthful evidence by unbiased resources, you are just spinning your wheels here. Birds of a feather should flock together.
Do you then consider atheism to be a religion? While you may be looking for evidence of something, I sincerly doubt that most of the others share your desires. Most are here primarily to bash Christianity with no regard to learning or discussing anything. If all the Christians left, I imagine most of them would as well since there would be nothing to discuss.

I have found most of Archeology to be, shall we say, wanting. Today's archeologists are essentially the same as ancient historians, like Herodotus. They uncover a little evidence and invent a fanciful theory to surround it showing what might have been. The difference is that Herodotus admitted that he embellished to entertain his readers while modern archeologists try to mascarade as scientists. I will admit that there are a few good historians/archeologists out there (one of my favorites is David Rohl who has had the guts to stand up to the establishment and try to present a true rendering of the facts as we know them). I don't mean to pick on archeologists in particular, since I have found this kind of revisionism in many fields, especially history and biblical research, but also in things which should be true science, like physics, astronomy and paleontology. Peer review was supposed to protect against wild theories and crackpots but instead it has been used to entrench the establishment position in almost every field of study. Scholarly just doesn't mean what it used to. The further I get into research, the less scholarly I find it to be.

OK, I will once again try to teach you something.

And once again for the benefit of those that cannot read too well: This isn't about me. While it's very sweet of you to keep blithering on at me, you said "I have proven evolution is wrong".

As that is the case, why are you so set on trying to 'teach' me when you might aswell just talk to CNN or submit to a scientific journal?

I understand your lack of understanding even the basics of the science - coming as you do from a non-scientific background.

Amusing garbage coming from the mouth of a bible thumper who thinks science comes in the form of a talking cloud.

First, as you say, we must define the meaning of the word Evolution, so I will copy from a previous post

There's no need, save it for CNN, or a scientific journal.

-Michael J. Behe

ehehehe.

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology

This has nothing to do with how it all began, which is what you spent a couple of weeks debating about and then claiming you had disproven evolution.

Im trying to go slow here so you can understand... Once we agree we are discussing Biological Evolution, we can next split Evolution into two basic pieces - Microevolution and Macroevolution.

Neither of which have anything to do with how it all began.

Am I allowed to rant a little?

Sure, but why waste your time with me? Once again I can only urge you take your proof to a scientific journal. Are you scared?

I feel like I am talking to a child here

Fine. As you feel that way, take your proof to a scientific journal instead.

I know you have great faith in this topic without any true proof (which makes this your religion) but you aren't listening and you never have any logical comments to make.

But then, once your "proof" has been made public for all the world to see, I would have no choice but to listen to it. No? Does that not sound logical?

Anyway, go find a dictionary and an elementary biology book. When you have the faintest idea of the subject, I will be happy to continue this discussion.

You're very amusing, although extremely ignorant. "I have proven evolution is wrong"... ehehe what a twerp. Listen boy, take your findings to a scientific journal, or a news channel. Why waste your time claiming you have "disproven" anything here, when this time tomorrow you could get evolution removed from school lessons, from science books, and from the minds of "non-scientific" people like myself?

I personally kind of like the creation story. There is no proof, but it looks as good as anything else, and it fits all the available facts. The problem with creation is - how can science prove that 6000 years ago, something miraculous happened? It can't - so there is no proof.

Can you please list "all the available facts" creation fits?

And once again for the benefit of those that cannot read too well: This isn't about me. While it's very sweet of you to keep blithering on at me, you said "I have proven evolution is wrong"...

EVOLUTION IS DEAD!

There, I have said it and you have provided nothing even remotely like evidence to show I am wrong. Do species change to adapt to their environment, yes, and I have never disputed that. Did life evolve from non-life or do life-forms split into different kinds of animals - definitely not.

You are nothing but a sad, deranged heckler and frankly, you are not worth my time. Enough said.

EVOLUTION IS DEAD!

There, I have said it and you have provided nothing even remotely like evidence to show I am wrong. Do species change to adapt to their environment, yes, and I have never disputed that. Did life evolve from non-life or do life-forms split into different kinds of animals - definitely not.

You are nothing but a sad, deranged heckler and frankly, you are not worth my time. Enough said.

Oh. That was what you meant when you said "I have proven evolution wrong"? No offence kiddo, but I don't think CNN or a scientific journal would accept that as being credible enough.

Can't say I've ever heard of someone making a statement in caps, such as "EVOLUTION IS DEAD", as proving anything wrong. Maybe times have changed, but it used to take just a tad bit more than that.

And somehow I'm deranged? Ehehehe.

What's the matter my little friend? Was apologising for your worthless statement too hard for you to manage? Do you somehow feel that attempting personal insult takes away from that comment, takes away from your statement that you had "proven evolution wrong"? Do you, for some reason, think that everyone should just agree with you, and if they don't, you're in a position to call them a "deranged heckler"?

When I tell you you're misunderstanding what 'evolution' is, does that upset you to such a degree whereby you need to attack me on a personal level? I suppose you would now try and blame me for your ignorance concerning what evolution is or is not, even though I was kind enough to provide you with the 'scientific' understanding of evolution? But no, that was not good enough.. Instead the only "opinion" you accepted was that of an 'anti-evolutionist', who is generally laughed at by the scientific community.

But do not fear, all your insults gets pissed out with today's intake of fluid while you're still stuck there looking stupid as ever by saying; "I have disproven evolution".

Clearly, from your astoundingly poor response, you have admitted that you're wrong. Whether you care to take the courage and verbalize that or not is your choice, but all the personal insults aside, it does not detract from the error of your post. You have disproven nothing.

The amusing thing of it is that you dare then say: "you have provided nothing even remotely like evidence..", when not only have I done that which you deny, but it's as if you think one person not responding to you is a show that you have "disproven" something. That is naivety at it's largest.

You are a sad little boy, and I would request you refrain from posting until such time where you have learnt courage, and the ability to apologise for stupid statements like; "I have disproven evolution".

By the by, you look like a fool.

David F.: Do you then consider atheism to be a religion?
*************
M*W: No, atheism is NOT A RELIGION! Atheists have NO religion!
*************
David F.: While you may be looking for evidence of something, I sincerly doubt that most of the others share your desires.
*************
M*W: I would tend to agree with that. I enjoy researching. I have an inquisitive mind. The other atheists on this forum may have other interests.
*************
David F.: Most are here primarily to bash Christianity with no regard to learning or discussing anything. If all the Christians left, I imagine most of them would as well since there would be nothing to discuss.
*************
M*W: Actually, we have interesting discussions about a lot of things. We don't intentionally bash christianity. It's when people like Jenyar, Adstar, c20, etc., come on board, their only aim is to challenge us -- otherwise they wouldn't be here. We've offered them christian websites where they would be more at home, but they refuse to go to the christian websites, so that tells me they just want to badger us.
*************
David F.: I have found most of Archeology to be, shall we say, wanting. Today's archeologists are essentially the same as ancient historians, like Herodotus. They uncover a little evidence and invent a fanciful theory to surround it showing what might have been.
*************
M*W: I disagree. Degreed professional archeologists take their work very seriously, and they are not running to the media to show off their finds. The media pursues them and creates a fabulous intriguing story to see their media. Just like the ossuary of James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus. That ended up being a hoax, but the media ran away with it! More recently, the cave of John the Baptist. The media ran away with that, too. Just like a while back ABC did an expose on Dan Brown's da Vinci code. Four years ago, for example, CBS announced the presidential winner before all the votes had been counted -- and they got in a lot of trouble about that. The media will do anything to get the public's attention, and their stories are not always researched or accurate. I don't believe anything I read in the newspaper or the TV.
*************
David F.: The difference is that Herodotus admitted that he embellished to entertain his readers while modern archeologists try to mascarade as scientists. I will admit that there are a few good historians/archeologists out there (one of my favorites is David Rohl who has had the guts to stand up to the establishment and try to present a true rendering of the facts as we know them). I don't mean to pick on archeologists in particular, since I have found this kind of revisionism in many fields, especially history and biblical research, but also in things which should be true science, like physics, astronomy and paleontology. Peer review was supposed to protect against wild theories and crackpots but instead it has been used to entrench the establishment position in almost every field of study. Scholarly just doesn't mean what it used to. The further I get into research, the less scholarly I find it to be.
*************
M*W: Scholarly research is still peer-reviewed. If it wasn't, I wouldn't read it or be convinced that it was accurate and true. Archeologists and biblical scholars who are professionals and not just some average Joe who wrote a book can be believed. They have theories at first, then they research their theories and form their own hypothesis. I make it a habit to never read novels like Dan Brown's book. Without an index and bibliography, a book cannot be trusted. That's one reason I'm here on sciforums. There are a lot of people who read peer-reviewed resesearch, and we share what we read. It's the christians on this forum that want to challenge the biblical scholars and archeologists. Sorry, but their testimony just doesn't compare to what the rest of us have learned through science.

I have done a lot of reading and what I read is astounding - evolution is more faith than fact.Done a bit O’ reading aye? Can you tell us just what is this "Evolution"? Scientifically speaking of course.