Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Ventusyr 233]

No, it is my fault. I brought up the subject.

So... Evolution... Creationism... Yup... I can't think of anything to say to get it back on track :P I used to be really into the whole debate thread but now, not so much...

I believe the six days were six eras in the history of our universe, which were six days to Him, and that a Creator was necessary for the arrival of life on earth. However, I don't really care much about how we got here, and God could just have easily made the world and it's intelligent life forms in six days. The story of Genesis has the order of universe-timeline-stuff correct in terms of the results science has given. So, yup. That is my take. God started the Big Bang, manipulated the astral atoms and such to form our sun and our world, and any other worlds with life, directed the gene patterns and constructed life forms on Earth that would eventually lead to the first sentient humans, Adam and Eve, who lived in the Garden of Eden, which was an area with lots of food and there was complete balance in the ecosystem.

I guess you could call me a Christian deist. I certainly believe in Christ and that He died for us, but I try to find connections between scientific observation and Biblical records.

[Uniquename111 52]

Unique, stay on topic. This is evolution vs. creationism. Not marriage equality. Listen to what Song Druid said.

 

*facepalm... You can't discuss topics like this without getting into a place where it's religion vs. science, and truthfully marriage equality is somewhat similar (more like religion vs. modern ideas).

[The Best Basileus 97]

Took a break from this to clear my mind and to rp more. I'm BAACK!  (looks like Lago and Jistuma were driven away by my absence <3)

 

"I'm sorry, I normally refrain from posting on such threads but this 'entropy' argument has gone on long enough. The entropy of the earth at any given period of time can become higher or lower. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to the entire universe as a whole.

 

Given that:

• The universe is expanding
• Energy conversions are not 100% efficient

If the above two are true (which science tells us they are) then the entropy of the universe increases over time.

 

The entropy of a limited area such as the earth however, does not have to increase with any given energy conversion. There are outside sources (i.e. The sun) which provide a constant flow of energy from outside the system. Thus the earth does not have to gain entropy while the universe must.

 

This neither affirms or counters either side of this argument. However, if we are going to use terms... use them right. Entropy should not really need to be used as a means to argue for or against evolution as it applies to the universe as a whole.

 

Now we have settled this silly definition squabble, go back to your 'heated internet argument'.

 

Other corrections to misinformed points I have seen:

 

• Zero Kelvins is not an achievable temperature.
• All mutations are not harmful. Some are beneficial, some are detrimental... others have no effect."

 

Every point you made has been brought up and refuted. Please read previous pages if you want to hear the arguments again. I will merely say this. Life relies on order to live, and it tries to force order on itself at the expense of its surroundings. DNA is more orderly than any form of itself after an endothermic reaction (mutation :P). The very basic idea of evolution is invalid because it relies on improvements and increases in complexity based on mutations. (Charles Darwin said this, and so have all evolutionists since. Anyway, I don't think that anybody would argue that a single-celled organism, the assumed common ancestor, was more complex than a human) The reliance on mutations is what kills Macroevolution. This is based on the second law of thermodynamics in that a direct derivation thereof is Gibbs free energy. An increase in enthalpy in a system, closed or not, (such as a DNA molecule or an entire life form), increases entropy.

 

The misinformed post on Kelvins that you cite was cited in a misinformed manner. You seemed to infer from what was written that the relationship only holds when at 0K (which would make it irrelevant anyway, and rather weird scientifically). This is not true. As we approach 0K the enthalpy in the system decreases, bringing the entropy down along with it. As we approach 0K we reduce the entropy in a system.

 

"religion vs. science"

 

This is a very false dichotomy. I don't want to flame or troll you randomly, but based on the unassailable proofs presented within this thread, it seems more like religion+science vs. Darwinism. That is all.

[Jistuma 1996]

Every point you made has been brought up and refuted.

We're actually refuted your points, not ours.

Please read previous pages if you want to hear the arguments again.

This is about those arguments, we're saying you are mistaken

I will merely say this. Life relies on order to live, and it tries to force order on itself at the expense of its surroundings.

Yes entropy I guess? Actually no, it has nothing to do with entropy... Explain what order means to you, because to me, that statement made no sense.

DNA is more orderly than any form of itself after an endothermic reaction (mutation :P). The very basic idea of evolution is invalid because it relies on improvements and increases in complexity based on mutations. 

As had been said, the same mutation can be good or bad considering the circunstance. Mutations are just changes, they aren't good or bad, they just are.

(Charles Darwin said this, and so have all evolutionists since.

Said that mutations are always bad? No they didn't...

Anyway, I don't think that anybody would argue that a single-celled organism, the assumed common ancestor, was more complex than a human)

Of course he wasn't more or less complex, he was what he was, he was able to survive, so he was as 'complex' as he had to be. Please also say what your definition of complexion is.

The reliance on mutations is what kills Macroevolution. This is based on the second law of thermodynamics in that a direct derivation thereof is Gibbs free energy. An increase in enthalpy in a system, closed or not, (such as a DNA molecule or an entire life form), increases entropy.

I have given you an example of how entropy can stay exacly the same in an open system, I even gave you values.

The misinformed post on Kelvins that you cite was cited in a misinformed manner. You seemed to infer from what was written that the relationship only holds when at 0K (which would make it irrelevant anyway, and rather weird scientifically). This is not true. As we approach 0K the enthalpy in the system decreases, bringing the entropy down along with it. As we approach 0K we reduce the entropy in a system.

Hammer just missunderstood and didn't comprehend that if you have energy entering and leaving earth, that it can stay at a mostly constant average temperature.

Again, entropy can rise and drop, so the second law of termaldynamics can not be used against evolution, because it rises and drops, not always rise. It only rises always when you speak of closed systems, and it's the entropy of the system that rises, not of part of it.

[hammer01 29]

Hammer just missunderstood and didn't comprehend that if you have energy entering and leaving earth, that it can stay at a mostly constant average temperature.

I understood what you are saying. But what I was saying is that constant energy must be given to earth in order for it to stay the same temperature. When you set an oven to a certain temperature, it doesnt heat up to that then turn off, it stays at that temperature because if it didnt, it would cool down. Constant energy is being dumped into earth, increasing the Entropy. Even after nightfall, the earth doesnt drop down to 0 kelvin. That is because there is still energy going to the earth. Make sense?

[Jistuma 1996]

I understood what you are saying. But what I was saying is that constant energy must be given to earth in order for it to stay the same temperature. When you set an oven to a certain temperature, it doesnt heat up to that then turn off, it stays at that temperature because if it didnt, it would cool down. Constant energy is being dumped into earth, increasing the Entropy. Even after nightfall, the earth doesnt drop down to 0 kelvin. That is because there is still energy going to the earth. Make sense?

Well yes, sorry I missunderstood what you were trying to say.

On the other hand,

Entropy does rise with the rise in temperature, but if the temperature can remain constant, with the lost of energy, the entropy stays the same.

Pretty much, entropy values are constants, for constant temperature.

For a better understanding.

Earth average temperature is 10ºC, that means the entropy it holds is 100

Then earth heats up because stuff, and it's average temperature gets to 15ºC, now earths entropy is 175

Then earth cools down because stuff again, and it's average temperature goes back to 10ºC, now the earth's entropy is back to 100.

[edit] these values I used are of course, not correct, just examples.

[Ventusyr 233]

Of course he wasn't more or less complex, he was what he was, he was able to survive, so he was as 'complex' as he had to be.

Unfortunately, this is the part of macroevolution that I cannot accept without the inclusion of a Creator. WHY did that organism change? It was literally as complex as it had to be. Heck, why did molecules even combine to form an organism that required the consumption of other organisms or photosynthesis to survive? Something needed to have started the Cambrian explosion, in my opinion, in order to start the evolutionary chain that would lead to sentient, cultural life.

[Jistuma 1996]

Unfortunately, this is the part of macroevolution that I cannot accept without the inclusion of a Creator. WHY did that organism change? It was literally as complex as it had to be. Heck, why did molecules even combine to form an organism that required the consumption of other organisms or photosynthesis to survive? Something needed to have started the Cambrian explosion, in my opinion, in order to start the evolutionary chain that would lead to sentient, cultural life.

I can explain part of that :P

The Cambrian explosion was when Photosynthesis.

It was a great evolution, because before, the microscopical self replicating beings, did not use the sun as a power source, they used the underwater volcano oppenings to receive the energy needed to continue self replicating. But the truth is, there is a way, actually there are two ways, for sunlight to be used to form the chemical reactions of Photosynthesis. While some beings only used one or the other way, which impossibilitated them from sort of evolving, some were able to use both ways f photosyntesis. Those that took the both ways then turnt to algea, then to plants, etc. It was them that created the Oxigen in the atmosphere, it was them that removed the Carbon dioxide, it was because of the apperance of oxigen in the atmosphere and inside the oceans, that the others beings could create better forms of creating energy (2O2 + C2 -> 2CO2), which possibilitated great evolution of the species and that didn't need an outside source of energy like the sun of the volcano activities.

Why did they evolve? Why didn't the others survive as well? Well, the truth is, back then surviving was extremelly difficult, there were only some small places in the whole world which would allow survival. With Photosyntesis and then breathing, surviving become much easier, and so those species progressed.

Now, onto why the ancestors of men evolved. Pretty much, have you heard that the primates moved from the forests to the savanas? That was the reason. They didn't have trees to climb, or to take shelter. They didn't have leaves or fruit to eat. So those that turned to hunting small animals, grew on two legs to be able to see above the high grass, those that could grab a rock and throw it, survived, and so evolved slowly into what men became.

[Ventusyr 233]

-snip-

So using the heat from underwater volcanoes, molecules were able to bond together and create life... Mmkay! Finally someone has answered my question...

Yes, but WHY did they evolve lungs? I can understand photosynthesis, the constant bombardment with photons would lead to the cell creating some sort of reciever for the photons to recieve the energy, but lungs? It seems rather unnecessary.

I was just asking about the cells. I know about macroevolutionary theory involving mammals :P

[Jistuma 1996]

So using the heat from underwater volcanoes, molecules were able to bond together and create life... Mmkay! Finally someone has answered my question...

Yes, but WHY did they evolve lungs? I can understand photosynthesis, the constant bombardment with photons would lead to the cell creating some sort of reciever for the photons to recieve the energy, but lungs? It seems rather unnecessary.

I was just asking about the cells. I know about macroevolutionary theory involving mammals :P

The lungs evolved because of the results of the photosyntesis, it created oxigen. The oxigen then can be mixed with Carbon to create Carbon dioxide. While you need energy to separate Oxigen and carbon from carbon dioxide, that is why plants need sunlight to break it appart, uniting carbon and oxigen releaces energy. That is why being started needing lungs, those that did not create photosynteses, or stopped doing it, developed ways to use the oxigen to unite with carbon and create carbon dioxide, this way receiving the energy needed from it.

As for cells... well... they don't have lungs really...

[The Best Basileus 97]

"Again, entropy can rise and drop, so the second law of termaldynamics (thermodynamics*) can not be used against evolution, because it rises and drops, not always rise. It only rises always when you speak of closed systems, and it's the entropy of the system that rises, not of part of it."

 

I'm not citing JUST the Second Law, but its derivative, Gibbs free energy. Gibbs free energy applies for closed and open systems. This principle states that changes in Enthalpy (total energy) and Entropy (total disorder, also known as randomness, or a lack of usable energy) in a system occur in a directly proportional manner (meaning if enthalpy rises, so does entropy. If enthalpy falls, so does entropy.) If we take the example of a DNA molecule, we see that since mutations are stimulated by energy gain and radiation in some manner, meaning that the reactions to cause mutations are endothermic, a mutation can only increase the disorder in a system. Let me explain. Before the mutation you had all the energy in the molecule and its structure. When it was bombarded by radiation, that energy was absorbed into the structure of the molecule itself during a the chemical reaction of mutation. Now the enthalpy in the molecule has increased, meaning that the usable energy and information in the molecule has decreased.

 

Life redistributes enthalpy (and entropy) in order to create information and energy for it to use (you can see this in how it takes the order from highly structured molecules it consumes, and breaks this structure down. We reorganize ourselves to maintain order and function using the power we gain from these exothermic reactions). Some of this information is in the structure of the DNA. The life form functions only because of this information that it can copy (RNA) from the DNA. Without this information it would fail. Mutations destroy information, thus, mutations make it more likely for a life form to fail.

 

 

So using the heat from underwater volcanoes, molecules were able to bond together and create life... Mmkay! Finally someone has answered my question...

 

The problem with this is that it still assumes abiogenesis is possible. Abiogenesis (the spontaneous generation of life from non-living things) has no evidence but evolution, and evolution is what relies on abiogenesis. This is a classical example of circular reasoning, and it is totally unscientific. Your question about the first cell is entirely justified. Every attempt to forge life from amino acids has failed miserably. (the only experiments that have produced proteins (not even life) from the amino acids have produced poisonous byproducts in amounts that would be fatal to any life forms in existence. Abiogenesis has a large amount of evidence standing against it (including the fact that Aristotle believed it XD (because Aristotle was NEVER right. lol)), and any attempt to even forge life (apart from using cell organelles harvested from already alive cells) in a laboratory has failed.

[Jistuma 1996]

If we take the example of a DNA molecule, we see that since mutations are stimulated by energy gain and radiation in some manner, meaning that the reactions to cause mutations are endothermic, a mutation can only increase the disorder in a system.

It rises in entropy, then lowers again, how is that hard to gasp? The end entropy, the end order/disorder, will be the same, meaning absolutly nothing, since you have not explained what order is for you.

DNA is chemestry, DNA has 'order' because the structure forms that way naturally. The result of the mutition does nothing to change that 'order', it will still have order, it will just be in a different. I have already explained in a former post the kinds of mutations there can be, the kind of changes there can be in the DNA.

On the other hand, the kind of mutations you talk about, are those that should NOT exist. Humans should NOT be irradiated with any type of radiation besides, infra red, radio, and visible light. All others causes problems because the breaks the connections of the DNA completly damaging the cell.

No, this is real life, you don't evolve from a nuclear explosion happening and you getting hit by gama rays, you get cancer and die.

The mutations that are natural acuring are the ones that happen during DNA division, where a part of the DNA gets slightly changed.

Again, the second law does NOT go against the teory of Evolution.

Life redistributes enthalpy (and entropy) in order to create information and energy for it to use (you can see this in how it takes the order from highly structured molecules it consumes, and breaks this structure down. We reorganize ourselves to maintain order and function using the power we gain from these exothermic reactions).

No, we do that because we move, because if you want to walk 10 passes you need to use energy. If we were perfectly still organims, which did nothing, didn't move, were isolated, and didn't have more matter or energy interfering with us, we would be rocks, or something similar to it.

Life needs energy to create the functions it does. We need movement, for movement we need energy, for the energy we seek it in chemical reactions. We need energy to keep the structures of the things we produce in our bodies to stay the same, as most break down shortly after being formed, and they have many uses. We use energy because we are alive, not because of 'order'.

The problem with this is that it still assumes abiogenesis is possible. Abiogenesis (the spontaneous generation of life from non-living things) has no evidence but evolution, and evolution is what relies on abiogenesis. This is a classical example of circular reasoning, and it is totally unscientific. Your question about the first cell is entirely justified. Every attempt to forge life from amino acids has failed miserably. (the only experiments that have produced proteins (not even life) from the amino acids have produced poisonous byproducts in amounts that would be fatal to any life forms in existence. Abiogenesis has a large amount of evidence standing against it (including the fact that Aristotle believed it XD (because Aristotle was NEVER right. lol)), and any attempt to even forge life (apart from using cell organelles harvested from already alive cells) in a laboratory has failed.

It's not a circular reasoning. Abiogenisis does not need evolution, and evolution does not need abiogenisis. Abiogenisis talks about the creation of life. Evolution talks about how life diverged into many species. Does Evolution need abiogenisis? No, because life exists, we don't need to know how it came to be to know how it works after creation. Does Abiogenisis need evolution? No, thought it works better if you understand the concepts of evolution and go back the trace of the species and see what they have in common.

Also, there were failed attemps at creating life, but there have been MANY which have proven that self replicating molecules can exist. Also... Amino acids? That's not the base for life... it's part of it, but not the base. The base is self replicating molecules, like RNA, which as well was not present in the hypoteses of the begining of life.

There has been MANY experiments where self replicating molecules have been created from atmospheres similar to those in the time where life arose. The problem is not the self replicating molecules, those (I think, I'm not sure on this one) have been found even on mars. The problem is what happened next. It is incredible hard to imagine, replicate, and study what would happen next, but some have demonstrated possibilities, and others have great hypotesis which are being explored.

On the other hand, this topic is not about Abiogenisis, but about Evolution, so keep your talking on it please.

[Ventusyr 233]

On the other hand, this topic is not about Abiogenisis, but about Evolution, so keep your talking on it please.

This topic is about how we got here. In evolutionary theory, the first step is abiogenesis. So, yes, this topic is about abiogenesis, which I can't see happening without a creator.

Also, there were failed attemps at creating life, but there have been MANY which have proven that self replicating molecules can exist. Also... Amino acids? That's not the base for life... it's part of it, but not the base. The base is self replicating molecules, like RNA, which as well was not present in the hypoteses of the begining of life.There has been MANY experiments where self replicating molecules have been created from atmospheres similar to those in the time where life arose. The problem is not the self replicating molecules, those (I think, I'm not sure on this one) have been found even on mars. The problem is what happened next. It is incredible hard to imagine, replicate, and study what would happen next, but some have demonstrated possibilities, and others have great hypotesis which are being explored.

Scientists have yet to make such a thing. Thus far, they have only made ribunucleotides, which is simply a precursor to nucleic acids and the building blocks of RNA. So, no, they haven't made self-replicating molecules yet. They have only made the basic ingredients for cellular life.

No life has been found on Mars yet! Why does everybody think this?! They found a crater whose conditions support the existence of some form of life, but they never actually went and checked to see if it was there! Every article concerning the subject is filled with coulds and should and possibilities. No precellular ingredients/life has been found.

Since it is hard to get what is supposed to happen next in the evolutionary chain to happen, then scientists have no proof that that is where we originated from. The problem that many scientists have made is jumping to conclusions based on progressive studies that are not complete. Have you heard of a steropodon? It is an ancient Ornithorhynchidae, related to the platypus. What evidence suggests it existed?

A single jawbone and three molars. They got an entirely new creature from an incomplete jaw. It is a jawbone that looks extremely similar to the jawbone of other relatives to the platypus as well, which makes it's existence very unlikely. Yet it is accepted as fact.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithorhynchidae)

My point is, "scientific" discoveries about the past is notoriously unreliable, with little observable evidence. I don't accept abiogenesis without a creator because, thus far, there is no evidence to suggest it is possible.

[Jistuma 1996]

This topic is about how we got here. In evolutionary theory, the first step is abiogenesis. So, yes, this topic is about abiogenesis, which I can't see happening without a creator.

As I said before, the theory of evoution does not need abiogenisis to be true, and the debate is Evolution vs Creationism, not birth of life and evolution vs creationism.

Scientists have yet to make such a thing. Thus far, they have only made ribunucleotides, which is simply a precursor to nucleic acids and the building blocks of RNA. So, no, they haven't made self-replicating molecules yet. They have only made the basic ingredients for cellular life.

The first experiment which actually created things like amino acids and organic molecoles was done in, wait for it, 1954 by Stanley Miller. Over 50 years ago, the first experience which resulted in amino acids being created, and only used electric discharges and an atmosphere which they believed was the correct one in promordial times.

After him, and after the problems of his experiment were found, many other scientists experemented, such as Fred Hoyle, John Baross, Günter Wächtershäuser, Mike Russell, and so many more.

No life has been found on Mars yet! Why does everybody think this?! They found a crater whose conditions support the existence of some form of life, but they never actually went and checked to see if it was there! Every article concerning the subject is filled with coulds and should and possibilities. No precellular ingredients/life has been found.

I said I wasn't sure...

Since it is hard to get what is supposed to happen next in the evolutionary chain to happen, then scientists have no proof that that is where we originated from. The problem that many scientists have made is jumping to conclusions based on progressive studies that are not complete. Have you heard of a steropodon? It is an ancient Ornithorhynchidae, related to the platypus. What evidence suggests it existed?

You're thinking in reverse, it's not what happened next in evolution theroy, it's what happened before, and yes, there is a time where scientists aren't that sure about it.

And scientists know what is suppose to happen next, they know the evolutionary chain. What they don't know is how that change happened or what would cause that chain, that is the difficulty. They already know all the courses life did since it started existing, they just don't know fully why or how it happened, because those are the hard questions, those are the questions that take 50 years to be found out and replicated in laboratory. Some are answered, some have already been discovered and recreated, but many more will take a lot of time.

If you don't know, scientists try to replicate in laboratories in years, what happened in millions of years. These things are not easy, these things are not hard, these things are extremelly hard to do.

Oh, and scientists don't really make jumping conclusions, they make hipothesis, which then other scientists normally refute and state that is wrong because of A, B and C. Even if no scientist can find a flaw with it, it's still not accepted until many trial runs are done, and experiments, and so forth. When a scientist gives him personal intel about something, it's not yet proven nor tested, it's just a feeling the scientist has which can be true or false.

And that example you gave... Of course it existed, a fossil was found of it.

A single jawbone and three molars. They got an entirely new creature from an incomplete jaw. It is a jawbone that looks extremely similar to the jawbone of other relatives to the platypus as well, which makes it's existence very unlikely. Yet it is accepted as fact.

Wait, so the jaw and molars exist, they are not of a platypus, just very similar to it, and you say that the jaw's existance is very unlikely? It's there, it exists, it's not of a platypus, but very like it, but then it doesn't exist? It is also over 85 milion years old, so it's not of a modern platypus of course. Also, what they took from the molars and jaw was evidence that some part of the scientific view on dental features. A quote from the paper it was published:

"As the oldest monotreme, it will necessitate a radical revision of present understanding about dental homology in the middle Miocene Obdurodon insignis, the only fossil monotreme previously known to have had teeth"

This is how science works, it gets changed over time as more and more evidence is found. It's never 100% true, it can't be since we were no there to see it all happen. But it can be as close as 90% true, and that helps humanity use the information to help itself in many ways.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithorhynchidae)

I don't see any mention of fossils there, just that that is the family name of it.

My point is, "scientific" discoveries about the past is notoriously unreliable, with little observable evidence. I don't accept abiogenesis without a creator because, thus far, there is no evidence to suggest it is possible.

Well... I don't really think anything bad about that. Evolution is not about the 'birth' of live, it's about the diversication of such. Science is not yet with growns which to talk with incredible accuracy about abiogenisis, yet it is about evolution. Evolution has many many facts supporting it.

[Ventusyr 233]

As I said before, the theory of evoution does not need abiogenisis to be true, and the debate is Evolution vs Creationism, not birth of life and evolution vs creationism.

The first experiment which actually created things like amino acids and organic molecoles was done in, wait for it, 1954 by Stanley Miller. Over 50 years ago, the first experience which resulted in amino acids being created, and only used electric discharges and an atmosphere which they believed was the correct one in promordial times.After him, and after the problems of his experiment were found, many other scientists experemented, such as Fred Hoyle, John Baross, Günter Wächtershäuser, Mike Russell, and so many more.

I said I wasn't sure...

You're thinking in reverse, it's not what happened next in evolution theroy, it's what happened before, and yes, there is a time where scientists aren't that sure about it.And scientists know what is suppose to happen next, they know the evolutionary chain. What they don't know is how that change happened or what would cause that chain, that is the difficulty. They already know all the courses life did since it started existing, they just don't know fully why or how it happened, because those are the hard questions, those are the questions that take 50 years to be found out and replicated in laboratory. Some are answered, some have already been discovered and recreated, but many more will take a lot of time.If you don't know, scientists try to replicate in laboratories in years, what happened in millions of years.

These things are not easy, these things are not hard, these things are extremelly hard to do.

Oh, and scientists don't really make jumping conclusions, they make hipothesis, which then other scientists normally refute and state that is wrong because of A, B and C. Even if no scientist can find a flaw with it, it's still not accepted until many trial runs are done, and experiments, and so forth. When a scientist gives him personal intel about something, it's not yet proven nor tested, it's just a feeling the scientist has which can be true or false.

And that example you gave... Of course it existed, a fossil was found of it.Wait, so the jaw and molars exist, they are not of a platypus, just very similar to it, and you say that the jaw's existance is very unlikely? It's there, it exists, it's not of a platypus, but very like it, but then it doesn't exist? It is also over 85 milion years old, so it's not of a modern platypus of course. Also, what they took from the molars and jaw was evidence that some part of the scientific view on dental features.

A quote from the paper it was published:"As the oldest monotreme, it will necessitate a radical revision of present understanding about dental homology in the middle Miocene Obdurodon insignis, the only fossil monotreme previously known to have had teeth"This is how science works, it gets changed over time as more and more evidence is found. It's never 100% true, it can't be since we were no there to see it all happen.

But it can be as close as 90% true, and that helps humanity use the information to help itself in many ways.I don't see any mention of fossils there, just that that is the family name of it.

Well... I don't really think anything bad about that. Evolution is not about the 'birth' of live, it's about the diversication of such. Science is not yet with growns which to talk with incredible accuracy about abiogenisis, yet it is about evolution. Evolution has many many facts supporting it.

Evolution without a creator does need abiogenesis to be true, actually, because the life that was evolving started with those cells. This is the very beginning of the evolutionary chain. Creationism is life being created by God. The title is technically a misnomer, because evolution and creationsim could both totally be true (as I believe), but what I think the person that started this was trying to get at is more of "Life Formed With or Without a Creator."

I know the first experiment. However, amino acids and proteins and all that good stuff are not self-replicating cells. They are necessary ingredients, but they are certainly not cells, and my point still stands: Biologists have yet to prove the arrival of self-replicating cells without a creator.

I'm sorry, it's just your the tenth person to say that in the past month to me, and I kinda blew up over it. TEXT AGRO KJFHLJHFHJF.

I'm not thinking of it in reverse, I'm saying what happens next AFTER amino acids and ribunucleotides is difficult to form and hasn't been done yet. When scientists don't know how or why something happened because they cannot replicate it in a laboratory... Why not accept that it was a divine creator? I've noticed that scientists studying the past continue to bring evidence to suggest a creator, i.e. the Big Bang theory before string theory, but then they come up with a new theory that is immediately spread throughout the scientific community as truth 100% truth. That is what bothers me about scientific theory. They take small pieces of evidence and make a conclusion based on that, when there is not enough evidence to suggest it is true.

I know scientific method. It just seems that the scientific method used to prove, say, the existence of an ancient platypus, is slightly straining the bounds of acceptable archeology. A single jawbone with a few molars. A tiny part of a single specimen, and they got an entirely new species from that. The jaw certainly existed, but they recreated an entire skeleton using just that jawbone and a few teeth. That is what I mean by "jumping to conclusions."

How does finding out what creatures we were descended from improve humanity? It doesn't. It widens our understanding of the world, or rather, the first-world's understanding of the universe. Third-world countries don't get that advantage. I would rather more money be spent towards building wells and schools in Africa than funding a lab to discover what animals are descendants of which creatures... That is an ethical debate, though, and we should certainly stay on topic.

Oh, whoops. Here's the right link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steropodon.

I never said evolution. I said abiogenesis. If the scientific community is going to criticize Christians because the Bible is unreliable, then we have full right to criticize the scientists who cannot prove abiogenesis.