"E.coli represents early evolution"

Another straw man arguement.. no one ever said a modern bacterium represents early evolution. It may, but then again, it may not. The earliest known lifeforms in the fossil record are things that appear to resemble blue-green algae. Also, there are many types of bacteria, and we have not discovered more than a small percent of probable existing species. Indeed, earliest lifeforms may have been no more than protiens, or a simple RNA strand, or something like a virus (although most poeple dont think most modern viruses came about until after more advanced cells).

The fact is, most very ancients lifeforms have long since died out and become extinct. The earliest primitive lifeforms are almost certainly extinct, and we havent found their traces yet. Therefore, we may never know what the first life looked like, unless we can create it ourselves. Even then, we dont know if it will be the same.

There is a lot of evidence that most of the cellular organelles are derived from more primitive organisms, that became assimilated into larger cell structures through symbiosis. Therefore, the mitochondria (the organelle in the cell that generates energy from nutrients), may have started out as an independent lifeform. This is backed up by the fact that it has it's own DNA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either way, the idea of irreducible complexity--though we dont know how the first lifeforms developed--is simply dealt with, and is related to the refutation of the "improbability" arguement: life exists in its present form, so obviously it developed naturally that way, regardless of how improbable it may seem to you. Science can only posit natural explanations, therefore life developed naturally.

Before you call this a circular argument, we can only start from one first principle: that everything developed naturally, by means yet to be discovered. Science can deal with nothing else. If YOU want to posit supernatural explanations, you CAN NOT use science to do it; the result will be nothing more than psuedoscience. Religion and science are different things, irreconcileable, and never the twain shall meet.

What you are trying to do here, is say "evolution cant be true because such and such a problem... so the alternative is that God made all life the way it is". Ok, where do you go from there? Nowhere. That is the same as saying, "We dont understand particle physics completely, therefore, it just works that way because God made it that way, end of story"--this is not useful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the other arguments dont really warrant mention, as they have been dealt with before, or are completely insane, such as the Missippi Delta one (who came up with that??), or even more funny, the idea that there should be records going back 500,000 years :0 ..that's called crank reasoning.

Quote:

---

Science can deal with nothing else. If YOU want to posit supernatural explanations, you CAN NOT use science to do it; the result will be nothing more than psuedoscience. Religion and science are different things, irreconcileable, and never the twain shall meet.

---

I agree, by the very definition and fundamental core of science and the scientific method. Science only studys observable facts. So it would be ridiculous for science to try to prove creation or even set about on the path to prove God. We should NEVER ask science to prove the existence of God.

So what does that prove? It only proves my initial theory that science is limited. If there was a God, which we cannot really prove at this time one way or another, science would never be able to know it. That is because science is limited. However, science does a good job with what it does. It just needs to admit when it doesnt know something.It needs to understand it's limits.

Scientists who believe something which they havent proved yet are no longer scientists, they have become religious

Science will never be able to prove the existence of God. But science will most certainly be able to prove or disprove evolution.

If evolution is effectively disproved, then the only other alternative (albeit logical, abstract, philosophical, metaphysical, religious alternative) is that God spontaneously created it.

Just because an option is not a scientific one does not rule it out as an option. If its the only alternative idea, it makes no difference if it is a scientific alternative or a spiritual alternative. The only thing that is important is that it is the ONLY alternative.

Quote:

---

Talk about "religious" fanatics, Sheesh... Haha!

---

Yes and your a good example of the unintelligent people that believe in God. You are a programmer at Intel, everyone knows only "cranks" work there. Im sure anyone could just walk in and get a job there. Rhuarc, WING, Me, you, Dan Silverman, Michaelangelo, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Beethoven, Ghandi, Fermat, 75% of the world, we are all idiots for believing in God.

Nitro, I think he was agreeing with you.

LOL! I know!! I was being sarcastic! I know Ran Man personally, he is super intelligent. We have talked on the phone, etc etc. Heh heh. Funny!

OMG!
LOL God, these forums are too funny.

Hey, but I got 2 stars now that I've been in this thread! Hey, who did it!? I used to have 3 stars!

Oh well, some poor atheist probably got mad at me. Hehe

Can't we just share opinions without folks getting mad?
Com'on people! Let's LOVE one another!

Quote:

---

But Why? The "evolutionist" of the world must ignore certain facts in order to keep their theory alive. Why is it "crank" reasoning? We know, for example, that early man used rock carvings for art and communication, so why not earlier than the Egyptians then, huh? What about the Aztecs? Even the ancient Egyptians used "Hieroglyphics" in stone, so where are the other peoples before them??? There are no other earlier carvings!

---

I asked a similar question to this in a previous thread. I got no response. Anyways, if indeed humans were running and about 200,000 years ago. What happened to the 194,000 years of knowledge that we know nothing about? Did we just sit there staring at a rock watching the time go by? Wheres my UFO? Seriously, we should be much much more advanced by now. This alone makes the notion of life for 200,000 years rather odd.

How did evolution generate a concious, a soul, ect.? How come some people can "hear" music and play instruments better than others, ect.?

Please answer these questions my evolutionist friends. I'm not trying to ridicule anyone, and these are rather straight forward questions...

P.S - Labeling Christianity as a road-block to intelligence in the U.S is very un-informed. Being rather young myself, the majority(90% +) of youth in the surrounding towns and areas believe when we die we'll turn into dogs or something and could'nt care less about our origins or science in general. As well, I'd say a very low percentage of the youth are religous in any regards(5-10% at most). Anyways, mabye the U.S is radically different than Canada, but over here, it's not that the youth are all un-informed Christians, it's just that they don't care and would rather have a good time then learn anything about the world and especially science.