Evolution is Impossible....

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.

No one can say anything about that.... no one really knows...

yes there are logical explinations to many things that happen.... but you cannot compare loosing your sock to the creation of the entire galaxy!

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

yes there are logical explinations to many things that happen.... but you cannot compare loosing your sock to the creation of the entire galaxy!

Yes...magic was much more likely to have occurred a few billion years ago than now. -_-

I'll never believe it ain't so!

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....

scientists have many theories that try to explain what happens with life...
at one point they said that all life came from a "primordial pool" that held all the building blocks of life from which single celled organisms came.... they have also said that all life came from the sea and slowly came upon land... they tried to explain the whale and its role in evolution; they said that it came from a land mammal all because it had a bony flipper.... scientists keep saying that they are finding bones of early man although it has mostly monkey teeth and only one tooth that is human like, they instantly call it human....

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?

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

This story was propogated by Lady Hope, and is almost certainly untrue.

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....

Chuck Missler is a biblical fundamentalist who probably knows nothing of the working of evolution or biology in general. He is a moron. Not because he claims that evolution is highly improbable, but because he has absolutely no basis for his claim. Evolution by natural selection is very systematic. His analogy is bogus.

scientists have many theories that try to explain what happens with life...

From my "Objection to Religion" post:

The main claim of creationism asserts that life did not evolve on Earth by natural selection, but that a divine entity designed and created life in its present state. Creationists generally mean common descent when they use the term �evolution.� Creationists insist that their claim is as valid as evolution because evolution �is just a theory,� and since it is just a theory it should be removed from class, or all opposing theories should be given equal time in the classroom. The problem here arises from their interpretation of the word �theory.� In American vernacular the term insinuates uncertainty; in the context of science the term is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. Gravity, for instance, is a natural phenomenon. There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon, such as Newton�s classical theory, or Einstein�s general theory of relativity, however the fact that two massive bodies will attract each other has remained constant. Similarly, common descent is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains this phenomenon. It is possible that one day our current theory may be replaced by something else; however that will not change the fact that species are related by common descent.

Goddamn you, Black Jesus, for making sense!

He's a bastard, ain't he?

---

I don't see why people should use the fact that "evolution is highly improbable" as an argument. So what if the chances are a billion to one? There's still that chance it could happen, however miniscule.

He's a bastard, ain't he? --- I don't see why people should use the fact that "evolution is highly improbable" as an argument. So what if the chances are a billion to one? There's still that chance it could happen, however miniscule.

But the thing is it's not highly improbable. Anyone with half a brain that has an open mind can look at the evidence and see that it's the most likely answer. Problem is, religion is all about being closed-minded.

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......

how do you know that your knowlage is not a lie fed to you.....

The possibility exists that everything I've been told is a lie. However, some of what I've been told is certainly verifiable. For instance, much of physics, especially classical physics, is self-verifiable. Heredity is also, for all practical purposes, verifiable. Genetic variation from parent to child is also verifiable. Many, many more observations are verifiable. These all coincide with the phenomenon of evolution. The same can not be said about most major religions.

Secondly, the reason I trust what is considered scientific fact is not because I have some unyielding trust in people, it's because every experiment they perform is verifiable. The theory of evolution can not be a conspiracy because it is simply far too massive of a conspiracy to not leak. There are many, many social checks and balances in the scientific community, which is why I trust scientific fact. Religion, being based on faith, does not have these checks and balances.

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......

BWAHAHAHA! Believe that if you want. Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution? The Nobel Prize at the very least.

BWAHAHAHA! Believe that if you want. Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution? The Nobel Prize at the very least.

I think you've owned this kid enough MJ, time to let him go on with his life in the dark.

The theory of evolution can not be a conspiracy because it is simply far too massive of a conspiracy to not leak.

Really? So do you believe in the "magic bullet" theroy from the Kennedy Assasination? That theroy still goes on today....


[QUOTE=mjordan2nd] Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution?[QUOTE]
Do you really believe that a scientist would be willing to give up free money and grants to disprove something as massive and controversial as this? Hmm, Nobel prize or money that keeps rolling in, thats a tough one....

But the thing is it's not highly improbable. Anyone with half a brain that has an open mind can look at the evidence and see that it's the most likely answer. Problem is, religion is all about being closed-minded.

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!!
Why does every one say that?