Well a lot of people have been telling me evolution is real. They give me the most craziest surreal 'facts'. Has anyone discovered any fish with legs? Any humans with gills or fins? If you put all the pieces of a watch into you're pocket and shake it around for trillions of years, will it ever become a watch? Is there but one possibility? Or if you completely dismantle a chicken and a fish, and put it into a box, shaking it around for trillions of years. Will it ever become a fish with wings? or a chicken with fins? :l
How can life form by itself? No one, not even scientists, can CREATE, (not talking about cloning) life (even in a lab). People trying to prove evilution try creating life, but of course fail. Also the odds of 18,000 DNA (OR RNA) letters lining up in proper order for life to begin by itself is 1/4 to the power of 18,000. That's more than you think. It's almost 3 pages full of zeros. That's pretty much no chance at all.
As stated previously, we've had a billion years passed before life appeared. Also, I expect Mage to come here and snipe your beliefs into the primal mud soon; in essence, just because something is complex and difficult to comprehend, does not mean that it's false.
Anyone here a Creationist who has a mind of his own (like shinycowbeast and I)?
You certainly have a mind of YOUR OWN, when you blindly follow and swallow what your Bible or priest tells you - without evidence.
Yes we keep going back and back, until we reach our ultimate common ancestor, single celled bacteria.
maybe you should read. what is the ancestor to this, then, he is asking. The big bang? sorry, but two rocks don't bumb together and explode, amking life in the process. what kind of life could live through something like that?
Yes there is the first mammals that inhabited the earth after the dinasiours and created the Cenozioc Era of mammals.
There is four eras:
PreCambrian Era: -4.5 billion year - 60 million years ago. - first and longest era -was a time of only the simplest forms of life(single-celled) -fossils from this time are very rare -Canadian Sheild was formed during this era.
Paleozoic Era:-600 million years - 225 million years ago - at the beginning of this era, life began to grow rapidly in warm, shallow seas. -we begin to see appearence of plants and simple shellfish life forms.
Mesozoic Era:-225 million years - 65 million years ago -many creatures moved onto land(reptiles/dinosaurs) -scientists beleive that this era ended when a large comet or asteroid struck the Earth, causing a huge dustcloud that would have blocked out the sun rays, destroying the warm environment in which these animals lived in.
Cenozoic Era:-65 million years - present day -this era saw the ris of mammals, and eventually humans.
maybe you should read. what is the ancestor to this, then, he is asking. The big bang? sorry, but two rocks don't bumb together and explode, amking life in the process. what kind of life could live through something like that?
I think people in this thread have made it plain that the Big Bang and evolution are two entirely different issues. Or are you going to confuse the two again? One was pertaining to the creation of the universe, and one to life. Is it that hard to understand?
We are not saying that life was created or lived through the Big Bang when it occurred. I'm really sorry, but I'm this close to calling you plain stupid; instead of telling others to read, at least get the basic tenets of your opponents' arguments correct before even attempting to attack them.
People, who rely on evidence, rather than blindly follow someone, simply because they say it, and because it's the easiest explanation.
People beleive that the big bang happend because it is the most logic way to think of the world starting.
I would say, because it has mounting evidence for it, and logical people naturally incline towards something that has evidence, rather than take a leap of faith. Yes, there are big holes in the theory, but scientists are constantly pushing the frontiers of science and improving upon it. We don't stick to our guns and believe in one version of the theory. If evidence emerges that would change the present theory, we would gladly accept it. And that's where we differ.
Even if there is a common ancestor, or ancestors, there still has to be an ancestor to that! It just keeps going on.
Sicne the theory of evolution only describes how organisms evolve, this is no argument against it. Independent of where the first organisms came from, the theory of evolution still stays.
How can life form by itself? No one, not even scientists, can CREATE, (not talking about cloning) life (even in a lab). People trying to prove evilution try creating life, but of course fail. Also the odds of 18,000 DNA (OR RNA) letters lining up in proper order for life to begin by itself is 1/4 to the power of 18,000. That's more than you think. It's almost 3 pages full of zeros. That's pretty much no chance at all.
Gosh, where to start... ok..
1) How life began is subject of the theory of abiogenesis; I don't think there's yet a theory most scientists generally agree with, but there are some base ideas. I strongly suggest you watch this video about Abiogenesis to get an idea of what we're talking about.
2) What do you call a "roper order for life to begin"? If you've watched the video, you'd understand that for evolution to begin, you don't need complex organisms; even unicellulars are much more complex than the first unit subject to evolution. It all came gradually.
3) Juggling around with arbitrary sets of numbers and probabilities will help none of your arguments.
4) If you have any remakrs to that, please open a thread about abiogenesis. We're debating evolution here.
Anyone here a Creationist who has a mind of his own (like shinycowbeast and I)?
Since you're constantly copy-pasting from various creationist websites, I doubt you really have that..
Well that has to come from something, or someone. It just can't create itself!
It came from even smaller units, agglomerated together by chemical laws. I remember a quote of a biologist I read in some book, saying that life is "a chemical inevitability". It's an interesting approach, and not baseless at all.
