| Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit! |
| Happy New Year | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 4 2005, 12:56 AM (1,480 Views) | |
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 13 2005, 05:56 PM Post #106 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
LOL...we are posting on top of one another Dinadan... Anyways...not to speak for Chazz on this....but the current order in the Universe is what went against the forces of Entropy...the fact we are here writing this. It is true the sun is dying a slow death...and unless acted upon by an outside force, will die. But the simple fact is, creation in itself is the evidence. that in itself goes against Entropy. (the floor is urs Chazz)
|
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Oct 13 2005, 05:59 PM Post #107 |
|
Retired Knight
|
OMG, do you guys realize that what your talking about has nothing to do with evolution. And just so you know, rust is actually chemical reaction combining oxygen with metal. And stars (the sun) are actually taking hydrogen atoms and combining them into helium, making them more complex. I'm not familiar with this entropy idea, but it sounds like it's meant to apply to something other than what you are saying. It sounds like it means that a gas put into the air will spread, rather than stick together. Or a building will fall apart over time. Even a single organism will die and dissipate. But there are obviously factors that could allow life to be created through chance... such as the favorable conditions and time allowed. And think the earth is supposed to be like 6 billion years old, not 100 million or whatever you mentioned. You'll have a hard time fathoming just how long a time that is. Over that time, I think a lot of "miracles" are possible. Ya know, caves are like a house, and they can be created through random events, and they aren't rare at all. I think the odds are in favor of a simple organism being created. I bet there were plenty of "living" things created by chance, but most of them would live for a very short time, without any trait that would make them grow or mulitply. Thus they would be one of kind, then extinct. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 13 2005, 06:02 PM Post #108 |
|
How is a defender of the entropic theory to account for the fact that the direction of increase in entropy is the same as that of the expansion of the universe from a singularity? One answer would be to claim that the expansion of the universe itself produces the increase in entropy. The analogy here is; with expansion in ordinary thermal systems - if enlarge the container in which a gas is at thermal equilibrium, we increase the number of possible states the gas could occupy, and so we increase the maximum entropy. As a result, the gas is initially thrown in to a non-equilibrium state, before 'evolving' back into an equilibrium state at a higher entopry. If the size of the container is continually increased at a suitable rate, then the gas will always be in a non-equiilibrium state of increasing entropy. Could this be the account of why the entropy of the universe is so unusually low, and of why the direction of increase in entropy is the same as the direction of the universe's expansion? |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 13 2005, 06:02 PM Post #109 |
|
Master of Spam
|
edit: this was posted for Galahad, not those who have posted in the mean time :lol: edit2 in fact, I think this answer has already been given in the mean time
|
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 13 2005, 06:05 PM Post #110 |
|
And to what Dinidan said, ( we are posting in piles here ) I went to great effort in earlier posts to explain how heavy elements are formed, lets not go over it again. |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Oct 13 2005, 06:10 PM Post #111 |
|
Retired Knight
|
Galahad, I think you're taking this guys quote out of context, or puting words in his mouth. First of all, he's probably talking about an already complex organism, rather than the most basic organism. And then you "skip forward" in his quote to another page... yet you (or the source you got this from) tries to put that final quote as if it referred to the previous quote. I'm sure he's talking about 2 different things. And also notice how he said it's "Almost a miracle". He doesn't even say that it is a miracle. It sounds like more of a figure of speech than a scientific conclusion about whether it were possible. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 13 2005, 06:11 PM Post #112 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Marauder, I can't find that part. Anyway, I am not interested in vague probablility calculations, but the actual mechanism of DNA being copied, if anyone knows it. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 13 2005, 06:24 PM Post #113 |
|
That post. No sorry i do not know how DNA is coppied. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 13 2005, 06:33 PM Post #114 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Kay, In that quote, he is telling you in painstacking clarity what he is reffering to. read it again. How can you say it is out of context? The context is ...what are the chances the the basic building block of life can be formed by evolution? Zippo! Impossible! Would be like a Miricle! Im not sure where you are losing track of him, but even a dumb Grunt like me can see it. Mar, what came first, matter or energy? Dinadan, the mechanism to how DNA/RNA is copied prolly wont fit in this lil space...plus I have no clue If you do...would like to see it...would be interesting.
|
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 13 2005, 06:40 PM Post #115 |
|
Energy came first in the form of radiation from the big bang. Really there is no question as to what came fist, matter or energy, because they are the same thing. Matter is condensed energy, E=Mc2. I wrote minor essays on this in earlier posts, refer up. :rolleyes: But we're getting side tracked. This entropy principle issue and the DNA thing is interesting me greatly. Galahad, can you please post page 88? |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 13 2005, 07:12 PM Post #116 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Mar, I don't have the book. Don't see it online free anywhere either atm. ; |
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 13 2005, 08:30 PM Post #117 |
![]()
|
It actually goes to a much larger issue, and that is the formation of the universe itself, and consequently to all the vastly complex systems found therein, including our own planet. To try and look at evolution in a vacum apart from dealing with how the universe itself was created, ignores the basic argument for Intelligent Design and against the big bang. That is that based on what science knows about chemical reactions today, withut a catalyst, outside energy force, or the hand of God, none of what we now see around us would be possible today. The basic laws of Physics itself, argue against the formation of such complex systems without a corresponding outside energy force to make it all possible.
To make this statement one would have to ignore the vastly complex state of the universe and our planet iteself.
Yup a study of the complexity of DNA replication is a facinating thing indeed Mar.
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 13 2005, 08:47 PM Post #118 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Hewre are 2 sites that anyone can surf at their leisure... This is a Creationist P.O.V. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp This is the leading Inteligent Design one i guess... http://www.discovery.org/ Have fun if you dare.
|
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 13 2005, 08:57 PM Post #119 |
![]()
|
I've heard a couple of seminars by christian PHDs on creation science that were absolutlely incredible. They were agnostic scientists first who later became Christian partially so by being convinced of God's hand in creation as they studied the universe in their prospective fields. I will try and find out who they are and google for info.... ![]() Many Intelligent Design websites are geared more for the christan and not for the unbeliever. The speaker I heard is not, he's a scientist first so to speak |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Oct 13 2005, 09:15 PM Post #120 |
|
Retired Knight
|
Galahad, are you just trying to antagonize me or do you really not see how that quote is a bunch of selective quotes with the final quote attempting to form it all up as if it were a proof. Read the final quote alone:
Now you are taking this to mean that it WAS a miracle. No where does it say that this is impossible to happen naturally. You gotta say it was almost a miracle in the same way you state that you won the lottery as a miracle (or in one lady's case, won it twice). Though statistics show that it's likely there is life elsewhere in the universe, but it's still quite amazing that is can happen.
So Chaz, what you are saying here is that the argument for intelligent design lies in refuting the big bang theory. So does this now mean that assuming that no matter whether it was God or science that put the universe together, that it is then possible for simple life to be created through chance without the need for a miracle, assuming that the universe exists how it does. It doesn't matter whether this life could evolve... just showing that it is possible for life to be created is a strong enough argument. It would be unreasonable to assume the supernatural when there is scientific explanation that is much more likely. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 13 2005, 10:28 PM Post #121 |
|
Why should the difficult question, 'where did all the energy come from to form the big bang' be used to disprove science and prove the existence of god? :angry: This one point has been hinted at in several posts and i feel we must leave that behind. I could ask you the very same thing; What was there before God and where did he come from. He must also have been created at the big bang to avoid the suggestion that he 'existed' in limbo before time it'self, which of course is ludicrous unless you care to explain? If anyone here can not explain, then lets not breach this particular subject again. Your own arguments are disproving your own arguments. Some people of course would call this limbo, heaven. But please someone explain to me where/what/when is heaven? Unless you can explain all in this post then it cannot be used to disprove physics. Unless physics uses it to disprove God. Page_Marauder |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 13 2005, 11:06 PM Post #122 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Hey Kay, while it is fun antagonizing you, those quotes are from the guys book and are all, x ept the last quote on the same page about the same issure...the chance of DNA forming naturally is impossible...thats wut 10 with over 200 zero's behind it means. It is like a miricle. Mar, you certainly believe in something supernatural...meaning a dimention that is not something we are living in at the moment. You have not stated you are an atheist I dont think. So, if you believe in God, than we are in agreement. Who knows where God came from, the fact is, evidence points to the existance of the supernatural Creator. The known Laws od science are contradicted by the the Naturalistic Theory of Evolution. The Creation screams of a creator in so many ways...and Chazz and I are simply pointing those out that many scientists have in the past. So, as far as where did God come from...good question, who knows.....the Bible says He always existed. But thats all anyone knows. BUt it takes less faith to believe in Him than it does Evolution |
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 13 2005, 11:15 PM Post #123 |
![]()
|
Please remember my original post Mar. Here it is again... Good conversation here guys. Cow as a science major at University and a Christian, I was astounded at the leaps of faith scientist take to try and understand and quantify the universe we are in. From the very bonds that hold matter together, to the origins of mankind, I've found that science is many ways similar to religion as it requires leaps of faith as scientists try to explain and understand what is the universe and its various properties. I make the points I do about entropy and energy simply because as we understand physics today, what developed into our planet and its various ecosystems and lifeforms, after the big bang could simply not have ocurred. In a nutshell science in many ways takes leaps of faith in order to make various hypothesis. Whether people realise it or not, the belief many place in evolutionary science and scientific explanation for the development of the universe after the big bang, is very similar to the faith many place in God. Brane theory disucussed in this thread was a good example. We can't know for sure but we can theorise an explanation that cannot be proven. In order to say I believe in brane theory you must take a leap of faith whethter you realise it or not. I do not mean to demean your belief in evolutionary science, or your explanation of the creation of the universe, but point out that as we scientifically discuss it we find tons of inconsistencies. I also wish to state that your belief in these issues also takes a type of faith as I said above, as science has many many things that it cannot fully detail and explain. Ultimately science and religion are very similar from one perspective, and that is that they both try to explain man and the universes origins. They are also similar as they both take faith to believe in one or the other. Great conversation guys, this is my last post in this thread, and unless you'd like to discuss DNA replication and entropy in another thread Mar I won't be commenting any further. Faith: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Oct 13 2005, 11:43 PM Post #124 |
|
Retired Knight
|
Yeah, get that last word in there, Chaz, without directly answering the question I pose... I'm sure people will just forget about that and get lost in what you had to say as your final word :rolleyes: Sort of how you and Galahad will say that I'm advocating some impossible utopia and I wish to have a big wasteful government when we have political discussions, or like when galahad goes quoting some democrat as if what he had to say was something I agreed with, or when all else fails, call me a communist <_< Maybe you can take a page from the current US adminstration and call me unpatriotic as well... It'd be a lot easier on me if you guys would comment on what I say, not on generalizations of what you think I believe.Galahad... I wouldn't think it would be necessary for the first living organism to have DNA. That would allow for a much simpler organism. And as you said, that final quote thrown in there is a bit misleading and not referring the specific statements above it, and without further context it is open to interpretation. So that leaves the DNA part on it's own. And as I just stated, I don't think it would be necessary for a simple organism. |
![]() |
|
| Dinas of Cheshire | Oct 13 2005, 11:51 PM Post #125 |
|
Incase anybody is still interested I know how DNA is replicated.........this is stretching my knowledge back to A level Genetics here but I hope I can give you the jist of it. Whilst it is extremely complex, Ill try to give a more simple explanation, if you lose youself following then try to follow the diagrams. DNA is built up of building blocks called nucleotides. There are four different nucleotides in DNA which join together by condensation(dont worry urself with that, but just think of nucleotides like cells, they are what make up the DNA). Each nucleotide is made of 3 chemical groups, the first 2 are basically the structure of the nucleotide, the third is the important one and that is called a 'base'. There are four types of bases Adenine(A), Cytosine ©, Guanine (G) and Thymine (T)....you dont need to remember their names just their letters, or basically just know that there are 4 possible bases. These bases combine with each other in whats called complementary base pairing so A and T always pair together and C and G do aswell. When they pair it looks like this........ ![]() oh and also these complementary base pairs are attached to each other by whats called a 'hydrogen bond'. DNA consists of 2 polynucleotide chains, which basically have a string of bases attached to each of them, and that is what is paired in the middle. DNA replication normally takes place when a cell wishes to carry genetic information to either another cell or another part of the same cell in order to produce specific proteins. that basically brings us to the regular image of what a DNA looks like, and thats the basic principle of DNA structure.....now to replication........ When a cell replicates the hydrogen bonds holding together each of the polynucleotides breaks(the bases seperate from each other), like a zip unfastening say. Then whats called 'spare bases' that are present in the nucleus of every cell then attach themselves to each side in exactly the sequence as the original stretch of DNA, so now you have 2 identical 'strips' of DNA with the same bases in the same order. ![]() like that The replication of DNA normally takes place before mitosis(the process by which cells divide and replicate in order to produce a new cell i.e growth of a tissue or a new born baby). Hope this was of some help, and I hope it wasnt too boring, any questions fire away . |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 14 2005, 12:32 AM Post #126 |
|
Master of Spam
|
OK, that's about all what I'd remember from secondary school biology. Now than makes lots incredibly long sequences, and that's what Crick refers to. Just to enlighten Galahad, zero possibility is not at all equal with impossibility in mathematics, and the value was near zero anyway. Furthermore, that the sequence is as it is is not due to mere chance in the evolutionist's theories. Remember, those things code information about the species, and actuall change in the population with time because of environmental effects. I think Kay is wrong about that a primitive life form wouldn't need DNA. The point about DNA is that it reproduces itself (Dinas kindly posted some details). The first life form would be something that can receive/give material/energy from/to its environment and reproduce itself by that. So, basically, the first tiny sequences would be a form of life for me, and that would make the chances significantly higher... I gtg now, must play with blitz
|
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 14 2005, 12:49 AM Post #127 |
![]()
|
Dusts cloak off and puts on. Ok so you stated... ` Kay what I said was that the fundamental laws of physics disagree with evolutionary theory, and that according to our current understanding of physics, the universe as we know it could not have come to be without an outside force or energy creating it.... The big bang could not have been enough to set in motion all the instruments necessary for what we see in the universe today with regards to lifeforms interdependant ecosystems etc. It just couldnt happen. If you choose to put your faith in sciences explanation, that is your right, as mine is to put it in God. Whatever you want to call your belief, it is still a type of faith, because theres tons science just cant quantify, or gives conflicting explanations for. Anyways, thats how I started of my first post in this thread, and thats how I'll leave it. Thanks for the great conversation guys. Hangs up cloak, and leaves the building...
|
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 14 2005, 03:07 AM Post #128 |
|
Thanks for that post Dinas. For some reason i cant view the bottom image though. I think i get the idea anyway. Charlie, listen one second mate. The difference between a faith in God and a faith in science is that science pressumes nothing. The whole idea of science is about seeking answers to questions we except we do not really know the answer to, and therfor coming to logical conclusions to explain them. It takes no leap of faith to believe something that looks pretty damn obvious to me. Religion asumes that all the facts are in place and we should never 'question' this, despite how improbable the answer is. I am simply trying to fathom the world around me, and i will not except that a question with no obvoius answer proves the existence of god. It just means we haven't found the answer yet, and we never will if we think we already know it. Page_Marauder Ps, I opened a new thread as you suggested. |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Oct 14 2005, 03:21 AM Post #129 |
|
Retired Knight
|
to view that image, i just click on it and choose open image |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 14 2005, 03:24 AM Post #130 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Dinadan, 1. U said...
If I rememebr correctly, in probabilities, if something is like 1 and 10 to the 10th power it is considered impossible. (not sure of the exact figure, but its something around there). In otherwards, if that is the chance of something happening, you may as well write it off as "forgetaboutit" ....in science/mathamatics jargon. So, the chances of DNA was somewhere around 1/10 to the 250th power! Like Crick said, it is like a Miracle! The other interesting factoid that I failed to mention was that proteins are made up of amino acids. Amino acids are both right handed and left handed (facing). They both appear equally in nature. But, only left handed amino acids can be used in the chain to make a protein for living things. The chances of that happening are off the charts. You not onlt need a special sequence, as you mentioned, but need them all to be left handed. Its quite a random feet really to get just one small one! 2. That sorta brings me right into the next thing you said...
Now help me out here, but if there is no grand designer, than Evolution is just a random, purposless event done by mere chance. In fact, that is the definition of Evolution...mere chance. So maybe I misunderstood what you said there. Dinas, exellent description....thanks alot m8. Kay, for heavans sake man! hehe....you really hate that quote. I can understand why. But yes.....DNA needs to be present in all living organisms I am sure m8. And even the most simple cell cannot just evolve...it would never make it. The oragnells are way to specialized and needed every step of the way...if they are all not present in the forst place with DNA, than the thing is dead for all in tence and purposes...useless.Respecfully, Galahad |
![]() |
|
| Dinas of Cheshire | Oct 14 2005, 12:48 PM Post #131 |
|
There is evidence for the theory of a 'big bang' occurence. Firslty all stars are currently moving away from each other(we know this because of 'red-noise'), this could have happened because of a big bang forcing everything away from the centre of the universe, as this is against the gravitational pull then it will eventually stop and reverse itself, eventually resulting in all stars forming a 'mega-nova' aka big bang, this then recreates the same situation. With this theory nobody knows how many times it might have happened, there could have been billions of these big bangs throughout the existance of the universe. This does not explain how the universe started but if this were the case then it could equal the chance of DNA forming naturally and thus our existence. It is seemingly impossible that something cant just happen from nothing, why many people believe in god. However, space expands by itself, nothing causes space to expand, which in my mind is evidence enough to doubt the existence of god, nobody can know for sure because our knowledge of the universe is a glass of water compared with the pacific ocean, its all an enigma. Personally I am agreeing with Kay and Cow on this issue because for me logic is key. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 14 2005, 01:06 PM Post #132 |
|
Can i make a suggestion? All people wishing to post in this topic should first read it, not just the last few posts, to avoid us recovering old ground. I have no idea what red-noise is but if you mean red-shift i have posted three times on this already. Nice post though, and nice point. To many poeple shouting and not enough listening in here. *sneaks out of room to continue debate elsewhere* |
![]() |
|
| Viktor of Astaroth | Oct 14 2005, 01:13 PM Post #133 |
|
Retired Apprentice
|
(Viktor sneaks some pplz to the back "secret room")..Yea, come in...i dont have all day mates...the "real" debate is here.. (more pplz sneak in)(Viktor says) *Sheesh.. so many pplz, come on move it along, lets go move it..
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 14 2005, 03:22 PM Post #134 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
hey Dinas! Welcome to the debate. Now to cross examine some things you said that sound like facts :rolleyes: 1. You said...
We are in agreement here. The Bible says there was a beginning so a Big Bang seems appropiate. It shows a beginning.2. you then said...
I have heard this before and it raises a question. 1. Is there any evidence that it has happened over and over again? Or is it speculation. I just want to seperate fact from theory/hypothesis. 3. then u sayeth...
Many scientists agree with you that , given the proposed age of the universe....billions of years old, there hasn't been enough time and one would need to have more time to plausibly have Miracles happen one after another. 4. u said...
Agreed! 5. u said...
Ok....here is a huge point I must make that we may have to really dig our heels into to flesh this out. 1. What is space? Here is a defenition....
So, what is important here? Space has dimentions. It is like an empty room. However, prior to the Big Bang, there was no spacce. There was nothing. Some call it nothing-nothing. There was no empty room in which to move about. Time/space and matter all began at the moment the singularity happened.
That is a quote from a scientist debating a creationist i think...but he summerized our position well. So, even if you have billions of Big Bangs that become the Big Squish and then Bang again only to Squish again......at some point, there was a first one...and we need to start there. I will wait yor comments.Respectfully, Galahad |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 14 2005, 03:50 PM Post #135 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Galahad, I'm putting my answer to your question in the other thread. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 14 2005, 03:51 PM Post #136 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
kk danke.
|
![]() |
|
| Dinas of Cheshire | Oct 14 2005, 04:06 PM Post #137 |
|
Very nice Galahad very nice, prompt replies....direct to the point......you must have started reading a 'how not to be president bush' book? Ok so back to the point, obviously nobody can prove that there have been more than one big bang because its a theory just like leaves on tree's is a theory........it is however an intelligent theory and one which has a pretty high likelihood. With this being said then logically we move on to the point about DNA and the likelihood of it forming naturally, if say we had had 1500 trillion big bangs since the 'creation' of the universe(whatever that might have been) then DNA forming naturally during one of the big-bang cycles given there are trillions of stars and trillions of atmosphere's whereby life could have been created.....does not seem so unlikely. On my halls at uni there is an american person who is a devout christian, and as its uni you can guess we have come across such arguements before , as an evangelical he has read me sections of the bible that he thinks are important in explaining god. Firstly the part that jesus is actually god on earth, if this was the case then how come his death was not even acknowledged by half of the world? America had not been 'discovered' by then. This is sort of regressing the arguement back abit here, I have read the whole thread btw Mar ;), but I just want to get another flavour and possibly an alternative angle on events. The Bible is one of the main reasons that I just could never believe in christianity, it is packed full of contradictions and alot of it doesnt make sense. Why would god create the universe in 7days? if he is god then surely he can do it instantly? The bible states 'In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth' does he not want to expand on that? or is that just all he's going to give us? we have to trust that he did!. Perhaps there is a good explanation for it and I await your reply on these first few things
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 14 2005, 04:23 PM Post #138 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Holy Moly! You are corect Dinas that the crux of our argument presupposes the existance of God. If you remain an atheist, then your are PULLED TOWARD believing in the Naturalist explanation. I will open up another Thread on God and continue that there...it should be a doozy!
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 14 2005, 04:24 PM Post #139 |
|
Master of Spam
|
I already know what my 1st question about God will be to you :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 15 2005, 02:19 PM Post #140 |
|
Knight
|
I seem to have got a bit behind, so I'll just respond to random posts to pretend I've been around and following this thread in it's entirety.
No one is saying DNA just spontaneously popped into existence. There are many far simpler chemical constructs that DNA could have developed from, as long as there is some kind of way of forming a copy of itself, then something will propogate, and generally that way is likely to be error prone, so random changes will occur, some good, some bad. Over the exceedingly long time scales we are dealing with, it doesn't require faith to consider evolution a reasonable theory, just a degree of thought.
Only if you assume the existence of a creator, does a evidence appear to point that way.
It doesn't scream of a creator at all, I think the fact that people think it does, it mainly due to the limitations of our reasoning and knowledge at present and just because some one has the "scientist" job description doesn't suddenly make them representative of the entire community, there will be many religious and unreligous people, just as there are in the wider population, so there will be the same people who started of as "agnostic" and developed some degree of faith, who of course will get trumpeted as evidence by the more religious elements of the community.
Rubbish! It takes less faith to believe in some weird super natural spirtualistic concept, than a theory that tries to explain how the natural world around us formed, not supposing any sort of "magic"? An inability to comprehend something, does not make it impossible. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic » |






How can you say it is out of context? The context is ...what are the chances the the basic building block of life can be formed by evolution? Zippo! Impossible! Would be like a Miricle! Im not sure where you are losing track of him, but even a dumb Grunt like me can see it. 


so many pplz, come on move it along, lets go move it..
7:32 PM Jul 11