Evolution is Impossible....

Haha! Maybe it's a clever bot? --- Just to add one thing to Gravs post in reply to Draco's: - Matter cannot be destroyed or created, it just changes state. So what does it matter if it is swallowed whole by a Black Hole, or used as fuel by a star? It's still there.

A black hole turns matter into energy, a star would place the matter into its fusion process and keep it untill it dies.

Haha! Maybe it's a clever bot? --- Just to add one thing to Gravs post in reply to Draco's: - Matter cannot be destroyed or created, it just changes state. So what does it matter if it is swallowed whole by a Black Hole, or used as fuel by a star? It's still there.

Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. Supposedly it's a constant, fixed amount present in the universe however.

look whose talkin he's not the one with a half naked dude as his profile pic!!!
Leave Draco alone he posted an opinion not a bash fest!!!!!!!!

el oh el

Hay guyz guess what god made me not evolutionisms it makes so much more sense guyz that god made me and he made america powerful kekeke

p.s. have faith guyz!

There are many misconceptions about evolution presented in your original post. The theory of evolution really has nothing to do with the big bang theory. The theory of evolution doesn't even say anything about the origin of life. Evolution does not take thousands of years. It happens generation to generation. Speciation, however, takes many, many thousands, if not millions of years.

There is nothing improbable about the theory of evolution. Not only is it an excellent model of the history of life, the facts behind it have been observed. It's like stating that the theory of gravity is improbable.

I really don't know what to say to your specific example of a lizard turning into a bird. My guess, though, is that the process you described is pure speculation on your part. There is nothing to say that it happend the way you described. In general, natural selection would severely reprimand any negative changes in a species, and they would die out fairly quick. I would suspect that the same principle would apply to the lizard. It would have happend much more systematically, and the changes would be beneficial for the intermediate species. That is, of course, how it happens in general.

The big bang theory states that the universe began from a singularity. The big bang would be very much like the collapse of a star into a black hole in reverse. Also, as Lenny stated, matter can not be destroyed in our universe. Black holes that swallow mass spit it back out in the form of Hawking Radiation. This is, of course, not matter, it is energy, however energy and matter are for all practical purposes the same thing, and the relationship between them is given by Einstein's famous equation. Before the big bang, atoms did not exist. Hydrogen atoms did not begin to form until at least one second after the bang -- an eternity at that time...quite literally.

-Big Bang Theory is pretty much garbage anyway, modern science still doesn't know nearly enough about our universe to make such theories with any sort of accuracy

That's not really true. Einstein's theory of general relativity implies that the universe is expanding or contracting. Through observations, we have discovered that galaxies further from us are moving away faster, which implies that the universe is expanding. Since the universe has been expanding, it is easy to see that at one point the universe must have been much smaller.

There is, of course, a massive amount of other evidence to support it. Cosmic radiation, as predicted by the theory, was found by the Cosmic Background Explorer. The abundance of primordial elements is predicted by the big bang -- where practically all other reasonable models have failed. The change of the state of the universe through time can be seen by a telescope as predicted by the big bang. I, of course, can not list everything that supports the big bang theory -- that would be an enormous post, but there is enough evidence supporting it that it would be likely that any new evidence found would add to it rather than replace it. Modern science certainly does know enough about our universe to make such theories. They easily did 50 years ago.

Divine intervention has enough of its own problems -- many more than either evolution or big bang. For one, where did god come from?

Ooooh! There was an interesting article on ZDNet a week or so ago about a group of scientists creating an experiment to test the string theory.

---

Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. Supposedly it's a constant, fixed amount present in the universe however.

Exactly - it isn't created or destroyed, but changes state.

Sorry, I thought you were just talking about the phases of matter

Nah, I haven't learnt any of that. I only know about Matter up to GCSE level, above is beyond me.

Goddammit, MJ, you're making too much sense. I demand you stop.

FUCK BLACK JESUS ARGHHHHH!

but I want all caps this time

I do understand that matter cannot be created or destroyed, I am just stating that the black hole or star would have caused a state change...
also the Cosmic Background Explorer just detects microwaves from the galaxy, and like light microwaves spread out like a wave in the water, over a great distance the microwaves could have come from any where....who could positively say that the waves are not comming from a nearby or distant source?

I do understand that matter cannot be created or destroyed, I am just stating that the black hole or star would have caused a state change...

That's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. And to the big bang theory as well, for that matter.

also the Cosmic Background Explorer just detects microwaves from the galaxy, and like light microwaves spread out like a wave in the water, over a great distance the microwaves could have come from any where....who could positively say that the waves are not comming from a nearby or distant source?

Because the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation is very close to that of a blackbody. In fact, the spectrum picked up by COBE was much closer to that of a blackbody than anything we can produce in a lab. The only reasonable explanation for this is that it comes from a time when the universe was much hotter and denser than its current state. That, coupled with the fact that the deviations on the experimental values collected from COBE differ so slightly from theoretical values that they aren't even plotted on the graphs strongly implies that the big bang theory is valid.

Look, if the theroy fails what elts could explain the perfect formation of a livable planet called earth.... even science says that if the earth was a little farther from the sun or a little closer it would be uninhabitable..... it would either burn or freeze....

There are probably millions of planets. Some, surely, must have comprable conditions to those of earth. Furthermore, live has also adapted to the conditions presented to us. It does not need to be perfectly fine-tuned.

There are probably millions of planets. Some, surely, must have comprable conditions to those of earth. Furthermore, live has also adapted to the conditions presented to us. It does not need to be perfectly fine-tuned.

I daresay that if Mars had been close enough to the Sun to support life like the Earth, we could all be Methane breathers, rather than Oxygen, no?

---

Look, if the theroy fails what elts could explain the perfect formation of a livable planet called earth

You can not use a supernatural being as an excuse for everything! It was old after the first few hundred years, now it's ancient.

He seems like the kind of person that closes their eyes and says "it's not real it's not real!"

Was it not the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, who disproved his own theroy?
Also a statement from Chuck Missler (I dont know if the name is spelled correctly), but he said that evolution is like a tornado going through a junk yard and after it passes a car fully formed and functioning is left behind... it is an extremely slim chance that that could happen....

Was it not the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, who disproved his own theroy?

This is a very common piece of information, but it is untrue. Darwin in fact believed fully in his work until the day he died.

As he wrote in one of his last works, Descent of Man, he stated, "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

So, don't believe the anti-evolution propaghanda. Make your own decisions based on your personal beliefs. There are too many lies used by those who don't believe in evolution to strengthen their cause, when in fact they are only hurting themselves.

Make your own decisions based on your personal beliefs.

They ARE his beliefs, now.

There are too many lies used by those who don't believe in evolution to strengthen their cause, when in fact they are only hurting themselves.

So very true. Who are they helping by lying to encourage people to believe something that is untrue?

how do you know that your knowlage is not a lie fed to you.....
You must also learn that when scientists are paid to research something they are not going to tell you what you dont want to hear......