Why Evolution Is Wrong

[Grim Bongmaster]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Yeah, but from the second the chick is born, or the seed sprouts, it's dying (ie, the law of thermodynamics is taking place).

That's total bullshit! For the first 6 to 8 months a human child is still gaining neurons! By your definition we would all be dieing from the moment of conception! I will agree that we are getting closer to our final day every single day from conception, but there are no physical signs of death while we are still children.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Whenever something is formed, from that second on it is breaking down, and entropy is building.

the mathematical laws of thermodynamics state very clearly that entropy can spontaneously decrease!

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

and how does salt forming go against thermodynamics? Salt is a crystle, like many other substances... It's chemicle makeup determines it's "precise planes of crystalline symmetry"... how does that, in the least bit, show something going against the second law of thermodynamics? And snowflakes aren't order... it's not forward progression. It's what happens when you freeze water vapor... again, how does this go against the second law of thermodynamics...

"Table salt is made up of sodium and chlorine atoms, so let's start with a very small quantity (around 50 milligrams) of sodium and chlorine - around 10^20 atoms of each.

Let's place these elements in a small container and mix it up.

What is the probability of a sodium atom meeting a chlorine atom in this container?

Answer: Virtually Unity.

What is the probability of a *SPECIFIC* sodium atom meeting a *SPECIFIC* chlorine atom in this container?

Answer: Once the sodium atom meets any OTHER chlorine atom, it is out of the picture. Similarly, once the chlorine atom meets any OTHER sodium atom, then IT is out of the picture.

The probability of the specific atoms meeting each other?


1 in 10^40.
The probability of every single specific sodium atom meeting a specific chlorine atom?


1 in 10^80. 1 with 80 zeroes after it.
Once we have 10^20 salt molecules, what is the probability of any salt molecule linking to any other until we have a salt crystal?

Answer: Unity.

What are the chances of a SPECIFIC salt molecule meeting another SPECIFIC salt molecule? 1 in 10^20.

Of all of them meeting like this? 1 in 10^40?

Of that batch of Sodium and Chlorine making that crystal?


1 in 10^120
This is how Hoyle and Wickramasinghe and Behe established their probabilities - by using permutations and treating each component of the cell as a totally unique entity with no other properties prior to final assembly than staying where placed.

Yet a pyridine molecule(for example) is the same wherever it is! Plus the properties of the variuos components REQUIRED that they have a constrained number of possible combinations.

Further, all that we need is some form of self-replication molecule that can absorb other molecules in order to replicate and mutate - already verified to be able to form naturally (although many Creationists will quote 40-year-old editorial opinions as "proof" that it can't happen), plus the verified Dawkins effect to bring on evolution of the final form of that cell. "

[quote=IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Grim Bongmaster

-No-one can possibly know how or why our universe works, where it came from or how life got here. Just because you have a fucking book that says some omnipotent being made us, doesn't make it so. I can write a book that says we evolved from dust mites and after 2000 years, no matter how many people follow my new doctrine it makes it no more right than when it was written."

And just because you read some "science" book which teaches evolution (not really a science, but rather it's own religion), and you believe in something that has no solid scientific evidence, doesn't mean you have to be a prick to those of us who believe in something else.

I don't hate christians because of what they believe, I hate christians because they try to force their beliefs on others. All throught the history of the U.S. you people have fucked with our country, to force your beliefs on everyone else, and I fucking hate all of you! Your entire religion! Not because of what you believe though, I don't necessarily believe the evolutionists either, but at least they don't want to control my life! Gay mariage can't take place because of your "culture", I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I can't buy and smoke weed because of your culture, what else have you guys outlawed...oh..right dancing!?!? Alcohol....You burned witches...because remember, the bible says they exist!! That is why I come off as a prick, not because I hate your beliefs, you can believe whatever the hell you want, but because you people have steadily throught history tried to force your beliefs on others.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Give me an example of energy not progressing into entropy? The energy is always there, but it becomes useless over time. If you think you can prove otherwise, please, do so. And make sure you actually back it up... don't just quote something, and not put the source or anything, like you've so conviently done in this post.

the mathematical laws of thermodynamics state very clearly that entropy can spontaneously decrease!

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Honestly, I don't appreciate your disrespect. If you don't want to read my threads, then don't. No one forces you to be here. If you don't like what I have to say, DON'T READ IT. I'm not here trying to force my beliefs on anyone. This is the Spirituality and Philosophy section of the forum... what kind of threads do you expect to find here? Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you the right to come in here and accuse me of forcing my beliefs on everyone.

All your culture has done throught history is force your beliefs on people. Here's a good one for you, that my dad once told me. If god can flick a grain of sand into the universe could he tell you where it was in a billion years. Your answer would obviously be yes, because he is omnipotent and omnipresent, then why can't he use evolution as his tool?

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

And just fyi, I don't think I'm better than anyone. The main purpose of this thread was to debate evolution. The evolutionists have their thread "Why the Bible is Wrong" so to be a bit ironic, I started a Why Evolution is Wrong thread. I bet you were all go-ho for the Why the Bible is Wrong thread, and you really couldn't care less about what they said in there... but as soon as I say something that challanges what you believe, you get all defensive, and insulting.

I posted a few times in why the bible is wrong thread, I don't believe the bible to be correct. That doesn't mean I don't believe there is a god, because I can't prove that. It simply means that if there is a god, he's not the one defined in the bible.

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Hmm... sounds a little hypocritical to me .

Your culture is the definition of hypocritical..

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Evolution goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics. Evolution also goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics by saying the universe is moving towards a more complex state. How can this be when everything that's left to itself in a closed system (which, by definition, the universe is) moves towards higher degrees of entropy and disorder?

I just thought I would mention that this is more of a bastardization of the THIRD law of thermodynamics.

[Mr Skinner]

Aight...me hopefully last post on this thread. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

Cottons...it strikes me you accept only the parts of science that would help support your points. Now I've already proven you wrong on 2 of your "proofs". Science is evolving, too. Maybe in 100 years of time we'll see entropy evolve into something new. Who knows.

All I'm trying to say is there is no proof for either scientific or religious theories. Some tend to accept one side, some the other. What pisses me off (just like Grim and chrystals) is the arrogance in which fundamentalists state their beliefs and claim they are right and everyone else's wrong.

Now I'm gonna repeat chrystals question: Do you think there's a slight possibility your religion is wrong and there is no god (at least noone like the one in the bible). I don't deny the possibility of there being a god. And I'm not gonna say evolution is what happened. I'd like to keep an open mind and discuss with open minded people.

Now tell me, cottons. Is you mind open, so you can accept your religion might be wrong, or is you mind closed and you claim to be right, no matter what arguments are presented? In this case I'd say discussing with you is just as futile as talking to a brick wall.

[tehpottestmofi0]

this whole thread is really sad...there is so much evidence pointing towards evolution that it's mind-boggling

the most obvious (so that everyone can understand): look at selective breeding-from the wolf, humans bred wolves with specific variations (genetic mutations/natural variance among organisms) to get the desired animal...and now we have everything from yorkshire terriers to great danes and mastiffs, and sheep dogs, and pitbulls, etc.....and this was also used for other tamed animals....but this is evolution done by humans, and sped up

another point: Genetic code
DNA-many advances have been made recently in the unravelling of human's DNA, many from the Human Genome Project. Some of their findings include that we are 98% alike to yeast in our genetic code. This shows how life went from primitive roots to complex beings through a series of mutations over billions of years. In every human cell, there are 3 billion base pairs of DNA coiled to fit in the nucleus. Every time that cell divides, it must copy each base pair until there are 6 billion base pairs. Now think of how many times cells have divided since life began. How many chances for mistakes. The mistakes that were harmful resulted in the death of the organism and its genetic code. If the change was beneficial, then the organism and its offspring would be more likely to survive, and in turn, pass on their genetic material. Now, after billions of years, we have organisms as advanced as we are.

Third point: mitochondria and prokaryotes (mainly bacteria)
Some organelles in our cells have DNA independent of the nucleus DNA. These organelles are mitochondria (in plants, chloroplasts). Mitochondria divide indendently of the cell and replicate their DNA. Mitochondria are similar in structure to prokaryotes, and display identical DNA replication. This form of replication is more simplistic than eukaryotic DNA replication (we're eukaryotes) and is used by prokaryotes in the exact same way. This shows that our cells evolved from primitive prokaryotic cells into more complex structures.

[Mr.FunkDaDilly]

Originally Posted by Hatebreeder

Today, the xtian church does not have the power it once had, yet, we have witnessed the xtian abuses of children, child rape, molestation and other vile acts that reveal the true nature of many xtians and the effects their "god" has upon his followers. The pedophilia scandals are just a small sample of what xtians are capable of.

Years ago, when the xtian church had complete control over government, human life and spirit, we can see from the inquisition, just how sick these people are and just what lengths they will go to get you to accept "jesus." Just as is seen in the numerous xtian abuses of children today, years ago, with the inquisition, girls as young as nine and boys as young as ten were tried for witchcraft. Children much younger were tortured to extract testimony against their parents.¹ Children were then flogged while they watched their parents burn.
A documented case in the Silesian town of Neisse reveals a huge oven was constructed, which over a ten year period, more than a thousand "condemned witches, some as young as two years old" were roasted alive.² Many victims were also extremely old, some in their 80's. This made no difference to the church.

The xtian church murdered, tortured, mutilated and destroyed millions and millions of lives both directly through the Inquisition and indirectly through all of the wars they incited. The damage and destruction this foul religion has perpetrated against humanity is almost beyond comprehension. Most people aren't even aware of the facts. Between the years of 1450-1600, the xtian church was responsible for the torture, and burning of some 30,000 alleged "witches."³

During the reign of the Roman Emporer Constantine CE 306-337 the doctrines of the xtian church were regarded as the foundation of law.4 Heretics (persons who opposed church teachings) were sought out, tortured and eventually murdered. Heresy was an offense against the state as well as the church. For hundreds of years, civil rulers tried to stamp out all heresy.

As early as CE 430, the church leaders declared heresy punishable by death. In CE 906, "The Canon Episcopi" was the first church body to expressly forbid the use of witchcraft.5 Before the Inquisition was fully underway, the church accepted heretics back into the fold, under terms it considered reasonable. The following is an example:

For three Sundays, the heretic was stripped to the waist and whipped from the entrance of the town/village all the way to the church door. He/she was to permanently deny him/herself meat, eggs and cheese except on Easter, pentecost and xmas, when he/she is to eat of them as a sign of his/her penance. For twenty days, twice a year he/she was to avoid fish and for 3 days in each week fish, wine and oil, fasting, if his/her health would permit.

He/she was to wear monastic vestments with a small cross sewn on each breast. He/she was to hear mass daily. Seven times a day, he/she was to recite the canonical hours and in addition, at Paternoster ten times each day and twenty times each night.
He/she was to observe total abstinence from sex. Every month he/she was to report to a priest who was to keep the heretic under close observation. He/she was to be segregated from the rest of the community.6

There is no precise date for the beginning of the Inquisition, most sources agree it manifested during the first 6 years of the reign of the catholic pope, Gregory IX, between 1227 and 1233. Pope Gregory IX who ruled from 1227-1241 is often referred to as the "Father of the Inquisition."

The Inquisition was a campaign of torture, mutilation, mass murder and destruction of human life perpetrated by xtians. The church increased in power until it had total control over human life, both secular and religious.

The Vatican wasn't satisfied with the progress made by regional leaders in rooting out heresy. Pope Innocent III commissioned his own inquisitors who answered directly to him. Their authority was made official in the papal bull of March 25th, 1199.7Innocent declared "anyone who attempted to construe a personal view of god which conflicted with the church dogma must be burned without pity."8




In 1254, to ease the job of the inquisitors, Pope Innocent IV decreed that accusers could remain anonymous, preventing the victims from confronting them and defending themselves. Many churches had a chest where informants could slip written accusations against their neighbors. Three years later, he authorized and officially condoned torture as a method of extracting confessions of heresy. 9

Victims were tortured in one room,


then, if they confessed, they were led away from the chamber into another room to confess to the inquisitors.
This way it could be claimed the confessions were given without the use of force. The Inquisitional law replaced common law. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, it was guilty until proven innocent.
Inquisitors grew very rich, accepting bribes and fines from the wealthy who paid to avoid being prosecuted. The wealthy were prime targets for the church who confiscated their property, land and everything they had for generations. The Inquisition took over all of the victims' possessions upon accusation. There was very little if any chance of proving one's self innocent, so this is one way the catholic church grew very wealthy. Pope Innocent stated that since "god" punished children for the sins of their parents, they had no right to be legal heirs to the property of their parents. Unless children came forth freely to denounce their parents, they were left penniless. Inquisitors even accused the dead of heresy, in some cases, as much as seventy years after their death. They exhumed and burned the accused's bones and confiscated all property from their heirs, leaving them with nothing. 10

The actions of the inquisitors had devestating effects on the economy that left entire communities totally impoverished while the church glutted with wealth. They also crippled the economy by holding certain professions suspect. Inquisitors believed the printed word to be a threat to the church and interfered with the communication brought about by the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. Maps, cartographers, traveling merchants and traders were all placed under intense suspicion; a threat to the church.

Although the church had begun murdering people it deemed heretics in the 4th century and again in 1022 at Orléan, papal statutes of 1231 insisted heretics suffer death by fire. Burning people to death prevented spilling of blood. John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
The nazarene quote incited all of this.

The pedophilia witnessed today is just a small example of the insanity and the twisted, warped minds of most xians and where any power that they obtain leads to.

The Witch hunts, 1450-1750 were what R H Robbins (The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology) called "the shocking nightmare, the foulest crime and deepest shame of western civilization." In this 300 year period, the church stepped up the mass murder and systematic torture of innocent human beings. Torturers were allowed as much time as they needed to torture their victims. Most courts demanded that prior to the torture, the victim be thoroughly shaved, claiming that any Demon left undetected in the victim's body hair might intervene to deaden the pain that the torturers inflicted or answer for the victim.11

Doctors would be in attendance if it seemed the victim might die from the torture. The victim would then be allowed to recover a little before more torture was applied. If the victim died during the torture, inquisitors claimed the Devil intervened with the purpose of sparing the victim further pain or preventing them from revealing his secrets.12 Those who fainted had vinegar poured into their nostrils to revive them. The victim's families were required under law to reimburse the courts for the costs of torture. Entire estates were seized by the church. Priests blessed the torture instruments prior to their being used. Certain devices were employed to inflict the maximum pain; indisputable evidence of the sick xtian mind:




This makes me sick, xtianity makes me vomitory, it is a pesticide for life.

Hell Yea

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Mr Skinner

Aight...me hopefully last post on this thread. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

Cottons...it strikes me you accept only the parts of science that would help support your points. Now I've already proven you wrong on 2 of your "proofs". Science is evolving, too. Maybe in 100 years of time we'll see entropy evolve into something new. Who knows.

All I'm trying to say is there is no proof for either scientific or religious theories. Some tend to accept one side, some the other. What pisses me off (just like Grim and chrystals) is the arrogance in which fundamentalists state their beliefs and claim they are right and everyone else's wrong.

Now I'm gonna repeat chrystals question: Do you think there's a slight possibility your religion is wrong and there is no god (at least noone like the one in the bible). I don't deny the possibility of there being a god. And I'm not gonna say evolution is what happened. I'd like to keep an open mind and discuss with open minded people.

Now tell me, cottons. Is you mind open, so you can accept your religion might be wrong, or is you mind closed and you claim to be right, no matter what arguments are presented? In this case I'd say discussing with you is just as futile as talking to a brick wall.

I had this huge reply to this that I lost 'cause my browser's being a mess... I'll not take the time to re-type it all, but rather, give a brief summary. If you want to know more or whatever, just lemme know...

Basically I just wanted to say that there's too many holes in evolution for me to possibly believe it with a clear conscious.

There are some questions on both sides that can't be answered... Take for example this: Where did the matter come from that exploded in the big bang? Possible answers: It formed out of nowhere all by itself, or it's always been there... Same holds true with this questions: "Where did God come from?" Easy, Either He's always been there, or he formed himself out of nothing all by himself... So either way you look at it, something has to be eternal...

Moving forward though... Some of the problems I have with evolution are legitimate problems: Entropy, The Magnetic Field (yes, i know it'll last more than 10,000 years... but it definately will not hold out for billions), the fossil record (i believe a flood better describes it for several reasons), and others...

I believe what I beleive because I've seen proof. Specific prophecy coming true, miracles, and the like... Things that can't be explained by science.

Yes, science is changing and whatnot... But can you tell me when the last time a LAW of science has been changed? I've never heard of it. But yet evolution goes against several scientific laws.

Do I believe at all that I'm wrong with my beliefs? No I don't... Because I've seen the proof. If something were to come along and prove me wrong, then I'd accept it and move on. I am open-minded. I take into consideration every argument made. If there's not enough backing it up, then I throw it out - so to say. If there's enough supporting it, then I go from there. So, you see, I'm not the close-minded one here. Most of what you guys say seems to point towards you being more of the close-minded ones. Tell me, do you even take into consideration the stuff I post? Or do you just skim over it and then try and refute it without even giving it a chance? That's the difference... I at least give your arguments a chance. 99.99999 % etc. of the times the arguments given to me don't have anything to support them, and they are mostly opinionated...

Hatebreeder... Your post on the Inquisition was rather offending to be honest. I don't appreciate being grouped in with the Roman Catholic Church because I'm a Christian. If you'd done your research you would have read that the Roman Catholic Inquisitors killed more CHRISTIANS than anyone else (Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs if you don't believe me). They are not the same religion, so please stop grouping them as such.

And also, those "sub-humans" that have been found throughout Africa and other places are found to be either ape or human... They've never found a half-ape/half-human type animal... EVER. Again... another hole in evolution.

Also, if evolution is true... why is the fossil record so empty? If there were all these millions of species in the middle of changing into other species... where are their skeletons? Surely there'd be at least one found by now... But guess where... there hasn't been any found. Archeoptryx (or however you spell it) was found to be 100% bird by it's discoverer and others so you can't give that as an example.

Originally Posted by tehpottestmofi0

the most obvious (so that everyone can understand): look at selective breeding-from the wolf, humans bred wolves with specific variations (genetic mutations/natural variance among organisms) to get the desired animal...and now we have everything from yorkshire terriers to great danes and mastiffs, and sheep dogs, and pitbulls, etc.....and this was also used for other tamed animals....but this is evolution done by humans, and sped up

another point: Genetic code
DNA-many advances have been made recently in the unravelling of human's DNA, many from the Human Genome Project. Some of their findings include that we are 98% alike to yeast in our genetic code. This shows how life went from primitive roots to complex beings through a series of mutations over billions of years. In every human cell, there are 3 billion base pairs of DNA coiled to fit in the nucleus. Every time that cell divides, it must copy each base pair until there are 6 billion base pairs. Now think of how many times cells have divided since life began. How many chances for mistakes. The mistakes that were harmful resulted in the death of the organism and its genetic code. If the change was beneficial, then the organism and its offspring would be more likely to survive, and in turn, pass on their genetic material. Now, after billions of years, we have organisms as advanced as we are.

Third point: mitochondria and prokaryotes (mainly bacteria)
Some organelles in our cells have DNA independent of the nucleus DNA. These organelles are mitochondria (in plants, chloroplasts). Mitochondria divide indendently of the cell and replicate their DNA. Mitochondria are similar in structure to prokaryotes, and display identical DNA replication. This form of replication is more simplistic than eukaryotic DNA replication (we're eukaryotes) and is used by prokaryotes in the exact same way. This shows that our cells evolved from primitive prokaryotic cells into more complex structures.

Your first example is an example of crossbreeding... not evolution. Breeding the wolves with other dogs in creating... MORE DOGS. Where was a cat, an antelope, or any other species formed from breeding wolves? Anyone? Evolution does happen, but not in the sense of going from one species to another. Bacteria make other bacteria... not fish or amphibians, or snakes, or skunks, or whaterver... Cats make cats, dogs make dogs, moose make moose, monkeys make monkeys and people make people. And I find it funny that they've found human skeletons that predate the earliest "sub-human" fossils... that just cracks me up.

Your second example is flawed as well. A beneficial genetic mutation has never been documented... These mutations are always bad and end up one of three ways... The organism dies due to the mutation, the organism doesn't reproduce, and the mutation dies with it, or the organism reproduces and passes this mutation to it's offspring which usually results in death. The first and second are the most common as most mutations end up making the organism sterile, or he/she can't find a mate due to this mutation. Also, the similarities in genetic code could point to a common designer just as easily as it can show that we evolved from freakin rocks... So you can't really use that as proof - seeing as how it can go both ways.

I don't really get what you're trying to say with your third example... so here's where I leave.

[Mr Skinner]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

There are some questions on both sides that can't be answered... Take for example this: Where did the matter come from that exploded in the big bang? Possible answers: It formed out of nowhere all by itself, or it's always been there... Same holds true with this questions: "Where did God come from?" Easy, Either He's always been there, or he formed himself out of nothing all by himself... So either way you look at it, something has to be eternal...

You'd have to be stupid to argue that. I've actually said the exact same thing before...

Science believes (note: I said BELIEVES!!!) matter has been there forever, or it formed out of nothing (matter and anti-matter combined=0, so there's a possibility). Those who don't believe in science choose to believe god existed forever and he created the rest. So yeah, cottons, no argument there...


Still...

Originally Posted by Mr Skinner

Now I'm gonna repeat chrystals question: Do you think there's a slight possibility your religion is wrong and there is no god (at least noone like the one in the bible).

A yes/no answer would do...

[IGotTheCottons]

Do I believe I'm wrong? Nope. I totally believe in the Bible, the God of the Bible, and all that... I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and I believe the book entirely...

BUT... and this is a BIG but...

If something were to happen that disproved the Bible... and I mean, totally destroy all credibility beyond a shadow of a doubt... I'd have to go with hard proof... I believe what I believe because I've seen proof... In order to get me to believe something, I'd have to see the proof. This is why I don't believe evolution... There's no good evidence supporting it. There's the fossil record, and some noted similarities between species (mainly similarities in genetic code)... This can't be claimed as hard proof. The fossil record is better explained by a flood (evolution is actually a poor explaination of the fossil record), and genetic similarities that cross species can also be proof of a common designer, rather than proving that we all came from the same thing...

[thccrystals]

Wait Cottons, do you believe the first humans were as evolved as the humans of today? Like do you think no adaptations ever occured and that less fit people are just as likely to reproduce as fit people?

I mean you have no choice but to accept some parts of evolution, even if you think a god is what started it all.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by thccrystals

Wait Cottons, do you believe the first humans were as evolved as the humans of today? Like do you think no adaptations ever occured and that less fit people are just as likely to reproduce as fit people?

I mean you have no choice but to accept some parts of evolution, even if you think a god is what started it all.

I believe in evolution within a species, not from one species to another. This is called adaptation, and does not go against any Biblical principle. I disagree when people start telling me that chickens layed eggs that hatched lizards.

See what I'm saying? People make other people, chimps make other chimps...Chimps do not make people, birds do not make reptiles (or vice-versa), and bacteria do not make fish or amphibians...

Everything re-produces according to it's kind. Little differences such as happen in adaptation do not change a species into another species. It makes the species more adapted to the envirnment it lives in. Take polar bears for example... They're the same thing as a grizzley bear, but there's a difference... A grizzley is brown and a polar bear is white? What happened? Adaptation. The grizzleys who were born with white fur found the arctic more suitable. They blend in better with their background and therefore survive. Those who stick out can't catch food propperly and die. So over a period of time, eventually there's no more brown grizzley bears chillin in the arctic, they've been replaced by the white ones.

This is true evolution (what you'd call adaptation). It's just ridiculous to believe that some chemicles, that were washed out of rocks, were floating around in some water somewhere and somehow gained the ability to reproduce themselves and become alive, and that not only did they come alive, but they gained DNA matter (which doesn't happen... anywhere), and became more advanced. What's even harder to believe is that as they became more advanced... they changed into different things? This would require a complete restructuring of their genetic code in order to happen...

[thccrystals]

Well if we did evolve, what did we evolve from?

edit: and what do you think about the fact that we share so much dna with other species?

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by thccrystals

Well if we did evolve, what did we evolve from?

edit: and what do you think about the fact that we share so much dna with other species?

I don't believe we evolved in the sense that you're thinking... I believe there were people (just like we have today) who live in different areas of the world... I believe these people have adapted to better fit their surroundings. This is not changing from apes to people... This means that there always were people, and they haven't changed into anything but people. Some have dark skin to protect them from the sun, some people have more body hair to protect them from the cold, etc... It's adaptation, not evolution.

I believe we share so much dna with other species because I believe in a common designer (God)... If every organism on earth evolved totally randomly, and out of the chaos that evolution teaches happened... Wouldn't you think that the genetic code would vary greatly from species to species??? But yet... It's pretty much the same for everything... Just different arrangements of the A's, T's, C's, and G's... I think this points more to a common design than a mere random cooinsodence.

I prefer to believe that there was a purpose to us being here. I don't like the idea of everything we know being an accident (like evolution teaches). I also don't like how evolution goes against a lot of the already proven laws of science.

[thccrystals]

You could say that you're less than 100% sure about this though, right?