Evolution is Impossible....

TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS go to these web sites and have your eyes opened...
these show scientific evidence for creation...

<http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html>
<http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html>

this one offers rewards to anyone who can prove evolution...

<http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html>

(notice the reward still stands)

Well somewhat in Draco's defense, his IP address is registered with the Georgia Department of Education. That also means he's the exact opposite of an evolutionist. I lived in Georgia, it's nothing but redneck christians.

Would this be caused by a school network? Because me and a few friends found this website at school, mainly because of the games, but I was the only one to stick around and get into the froums... I believe that the 'throw away' e-mail accounts are acctually my friends e-mail addresses... I am sorry if it appeared to look like this... also the e-mail accounts, we all needed similar accounts because we need to send our homework... yahoo seemed to be the most popular in class...

Oh, okay. These are all different people then?

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?!

What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

Well somewhat in Draco's defense, his IP address is registered with the Georgia Department of Education. That also means he's the exact opposite of an evolutionist. I lived in Georgia, it's nothing but redneck christians.

Watch it!

Oh, okay. These are all different people then?

Yes...

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?! What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

It was also easy to keep up with...

I'd say Bible bashing Texans... but thats because they are bible bashers...

Bible bashers are better than christians.

Yes...

I'm willing to believe you.

This is because you provided counter-evidence: something you haven't shown so far.

Wikipedia does have inaccuracies but it's been weighed in vs. britannica and other references and faired well.

Remember Lucy, the 'oldest' remains of a human(on an evolutionary basis)... The thing I don't get is that they find what looks like a monkey skelaton, but it has only one tooth that is similar to a human...

Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred.

I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females.

If that were true then I could say that dogs were closely related because they have canine teeth...

Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.

I think scientists like to exaggerate on things to bring it into their favor...

Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...

Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.

O.K, look.... I am going to clear this whole thing up... I am saying that adaptation is true, animals can adapt to their surroundings... (example)when you take a hot shower for a couple of days does your skin not feel like you have been burned after a while?

I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.

(My other example) Remember the frogs in the forest... if there are two types of frogs one yellow and one green, since the trees are going to allow the green frogs to hide easier the green frogs will dominate(natural selection)...

This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.

The thing I am against is evolutionary 'benifits' that seem to come out of the blue and help out an unsuspecting creature... if evolution is true why is it that some animals evolved, but others diddn't... take monkeys for example, if they all came from the same evolutionary line why is it that some are still monkeys and others are 'evolved humans'? You would expect from DNA that they all would have evolved, and we would have no monkeys left on Earth... Explain that to me...

DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population.

Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population.

Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.

But tar, being an antibiotic, would prevent the rise of any single celled organisms...

Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.

also, remember when you said, "If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar," and "I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar."... if the Miller-Urey experiment caused tar to form, why is it that this did not occur all over the world?

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously.

whats the chance of it happening in one single spot especially if the entire area is flat... if there were no trees and the only thing tall was a mountain why did lightining strike that one specific spot?

The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.

sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...

I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.

So if the tar as you said before would give the amino acids the needed hydrocarbon atoms... wouldn't the hydrocarbons need energy to break away from eachother to form with the amino acids? This would require another lightining srike.... also in the Miller-Urey experiment did they not just use a spark that has at least a tenth of the power of lightining? would their experiment have been fried if they used a bigger shock?

Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.

I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...

You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature

You have really got to read my posts a little more closely... Look fossils that have been found recorded and researched have nothing to do with evolution... they are just animals that have turned into stone, they are not transitional and do not point to evolution...

Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.

also I would talk to bacteria, but I am just waiting for evolution to give them the capacity for speech...

Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.

Have you seen any transitional animals? Because if you have, I would love to see it... Flying squirrels are just another form of squirrel, like flying fish are another form of fish...

Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?

Benificial mutations: I have seen frogs in contaminated water that develop bad or missing legs, I have seen people who have extra arms or even heads that did not work... I really doubt that evolution is any better, I mean based on that, I would seriously doubt that evolution is so perfect that there would be no problems with the creatures that come of it...

Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.

Diddn't we go over this?

Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.

TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS go to these web sites and have your eyes opened... these show scientific evidence for creation...

*Sigh*

I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.

Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.

The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world.

Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source.

5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent.

What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?

6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..

Yea, but not on a global scale.

7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.

Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.

Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.

Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred. I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females. Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.

I heard it somewhere...

Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

What does cloning a human have to do with Lucy... Lucy is clearly a monkey yet people tie it to us...

Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.

Like what?

I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.

If you cant see that, then you have no idea what you are talking about...

This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.

I guess you did not see the brackets at the end of my sentence... I put what the example was at the end...

DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population. Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population. Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.

DNA evidence would show some form of connection between everything, I mean we did evolve from the same spot....

Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.

All right, I will get away from the tar.... for now....

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously. The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.

Well, the major difference between early earth and the experiment is that the spark was continuous in the experiment... I really doubt that lightining would ever do that....

I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.

It is the name of a medicine that makes you throwup...

Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.

It would take alot longer than for the sun's light to do anything useful...

You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.

I said it with the frog example!

Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.

They tested radiometric dating, it does not accuratly date...

Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.

I would but God finished creation on the seventh day...

Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?

No, that is genetically similar, they are not relatives...

Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.

Any mutation is a form of evolution... if the animal survives long enough to mate, it will pass its traits on...

Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.

You just don't like my answers....

*Sigh* I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.

Diddn't exactly plan it, but it was a great web site...

Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.

well if there is no missing link there is no transition between anything....

Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.

He was talking about the improbibility of the decaying magnetic field, not the other way around...

Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source. What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?

Well... he said that there is sedimentary deposits in places where it just does not flood...

Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.

Well, sedimentary deposits are found on every continent, but I don't think it floods every where....

This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.

Well, what could have stopped the population growth? Flood? What?

Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.

Granites are formed of an aggregate of crystals which are molded together without any space between them or which enclose one another. No way gas could seep into the rock and stick around...

Just ban this kid already. He's absolutely dense.

The only thing you got right is Syrup of Ipecak (or something).

And I'm pretty sure that makes you puke because it's so bitter you can't handle it. I don't know if it's actually tar. I do know it doesn't make you puke because it's an antibiotic though. Even if it is an antibiotic, that's not what it's used for, as you won't keep it in your body.

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?! What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

Dude I can put up with Texicans, but hillbillies are just too stupid. I live in a hillbilly state right now because it's cheaper to fly to Japan from here. No one can read, spell, or write with a readable penmanship.

Also christians are stupid. No matter who becomes one they always lose a lot of their intelligence and wisdom and they are terrible cooks as well!

My vote for Red Neck Christians.

For those of you that have looked at the website:

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html

I believe that if you could prove evolution possible, those rewards would have been taken already... and most of these have been going on for years....

Of course we can prove it POSSIBLE. But we can't prove it to be FACT.

I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can prove to me that your religion and your god are FACT. Seriously. If you can give me hard evidence proving to me that your god is indeed real, I will give you a thousand dollars.

Just because we can't PROVE it doesn't mean it's not true. Same goes for your god and your religion. You can't prove it's real, I can't prove it isn't. I can't prove evolution is real, you can't prove it isn't.

It comes down to faith vs evidence when the evidence is so far to one side of an arguement. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but the evidence points to evolution. I chose to believe the evidence rather than put my faith in the opposite. You chose to put your faith into something that is almost completely lacking evidence, which is a brave thing to do, and could be rewarding in the end if you were right.

For all we know, you could be right and I could be wrong, I'll end up in hell and you wont. Until then, I'm a science man, not a religion man, and science tells me you are wrong.

Of course we can prove it POSSIBLE. But we can't prove it to be FACT. I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can prove to me that your religion and your god are FACT. Seriously. If you can give me hard evidence proving to me that your god is indeed real, I will give you a thousand dollars. Just because we can't PROVE it doesn't mean it's not true. Same goes for your god and your religion. You can't prove it's real, I can't prove it isn't. I can't prove evolution is real, you can't prove it isn't. It comes down to faith vs evidence when the evidence is so far to one side of an arguement. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but the evidence points to evolution. I chose to believe the evidence rather than put my faith in the opposite. You chose to put your faith into something that is almost completely lacking evidence, which is a brave thing to do, and could be rewarding in the end if you were right. For all we know, you could be right and I could be wrong, I'll end up in hell and you wont. Until then, I'm a science man, not a religion man, and science tells me you are wrong.

Let me put it to you as best as I can.... this should help....

You know the universal code for help, S.O.S (dont worry I am going somewhere with this) means distress. S.O.S. isn't distress but it means it.... back when these simple letters were too big to transmit somone sat down and divised a way to re-represent this... he decided to represent S as three dots(...), and O as three dashes(---), so S.O.S. is (...---...). This is the way he wanted it and that is the way everyone now accepts it. Similarly, in DNA the acids Thymine(T), Guanine(G), Cytosine(C), and Adenine(A) in certain patterns represent different chemicals, Similarly to the dots and dashes represent certain chemicals except there are no dots and dashes... In cells the ribosomes(which act like the reading head of a tape player) read the DNA sequences and from that determines the next chemical to go into the chain that is being built. Say the ribosome reads GGC. If the ribosome reads GGC it will know that the next chemical to go in will be Glycine(I believe is how it is spelled)... GCC does not make Glycine it just represents that particular chemical, so you know that intelligence has predrtermined what this represents. Here is an experiment... say I have a bowl, and I take 1,000 cards that have the letter 'A' on them and put them into the bowl, and I take 1,000 cards of B, C, all the way to Z in to the bowl(now I have 1,000 cards of every letter in the alphabet in the bowl) then I mix them up in to a random assortment... then say I reached in and grabbed the letter 'J', then say we do it again and I pull out 'A'... so now I have 'JA' as a completely random sequence of lettrers. Now I ask you, what does 'JA' mean? It means absolutely nothing... there is nothing that is set in stone that says 'JA' means something...

Now how could a random collection of acids possibly come together and form something if it has no idea what to do with certain chemical sequences if there is nothing to be represented...

I already addressed this

-Just because something is far more intricate than you can understand, and requires probability that you cannot fathom, does not mean it's impossible I'd say you're mostly talking out of your arse on this one

Everyone that wins the lottery feels beforehand that the odds were impossible

Yet people win every week and animals continue to evolve