creation or evolution

[Mayjest]

 

 

 

Just to clear this up, and putting it as scientifically as possible, two animals are considered different species when they can no longer mate to produce fertile offspring. Basically if two animals can have babies theyre the same species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that, I always wondered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viruses like AIDS are passed down through generations by adding a DNA copy of themselves to the host's genome. So you'd have the information to make a human, as well as the AIDS virus information. However, not all viruses like this will cause death, some are harmless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approximately 1% of human DNA is composed of these viruses which have added themselves to our genome (some 30,000 viruses). The arrows on the picture show when some of these viruses added themselves to our genome. All branches after the insertion point (those to the top right) carry the virus. Once a virus DNA has inserted itself into the DNA of an organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism. Thus showing that we are descendents of apes. The chances of us randomly getting the same inserted viruses in the same DNA spots as monkeys, but no other organisms, are extremely low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This comes from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are 29+ other evidences for evolution there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So that's what retroviruses are. I've heard them spouted at me so much in debate like this, yet no one has taken the time to actually tell me what the bloody hell they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My main bit of debate (assuming that the whole retrovirus thing isn't fake) is "The chances of us randomly getting the same inserted viruses in the same DNA spots as monkeys, but no other organisms, are extremely low." Just to bring it to your attention, but the chances of the whole theory of evolution being true are exrememly low as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The big bang didn't have any life in it, we all know this. So life had to come from somewhere. The humanist argument (not what it's properly called, but I use it to save time. It's big bang, evolution and all that jazz rolled into one) says that atoms randomly moved about and joined to produce different proteins, and these proteins eventually joined together to produce what we know as life. But those odds are exeptionally low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, the odds that the proteins will be created are low enough, then that different proteins are formed, then that the proteins then form life. In fact, it's about 0.1 x 10^256 (where '^' means 'to the power of', or '10x10x10, 256 times). Those are very small odds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To put this in perspective:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The odds that Micheal Jackson would have been pronounced 'guilty' (imagine this was a few weeks ago), was 0.1x5, or a 50/50 chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The odds that the G8 will actually do what the world wants, is around 0.1x10, or 1 in 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The odds of me going to Oxford or Cambridge university next year, when I haven't applied, is 0.1x10^4, or one in 10 thousand. Seriously, I looked this up, I have a very small chance of getting in through clearing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The odds where all scientists and staticians agree are so low that they might as well be impossible is 0.1x10^15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The odds that evolution is true is 0.1x10^256.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's clear that it's so low as to be useless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way that evolution (well, not evolution, that bit is fine. It's the transicion from elements to life that is wrong) could possibly be true is if the universe were trillions of times older, and trillions of times bigger. There simply is not enough space or time for this to have happened, and certainly not to the degree that life has evolved on this planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How (or if) the universe went from elements to life, is yet to be explained. While just saying 'the big bang', and 'evolution' may be enough for a 14 year old physics class, it ain't good enough for me.

[dusqi]

 

 

 

The big bang didn't have any life in it, we all know this. So life had to come from somewhere. The humanist argument (not what it's properly called, but I use it to save time. It's big bang, evolution and all that jazz rolled into one) says that atoms randomly moved about and joined to produce different proteins, and these proteins eventually joined together to produce what we know as life. But those odds are exeptionally low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you - the evidence for mundane elements randomly turning themselves into simple life seems a bit more sketchy to me, and I haven't looked into it much. This is why I don't strongly disagree with evolutionary creationists, who say that God started life off and then evolution occurred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I completely disagree with is pure creationism - the universe being created in 6 days, with humans all set up and ready to lead all the other animals. It seems obvious to me that humans have evolved from apes and there is a wealth of evidence to back this up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where I come back to Insane, who said of me earlier:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised that this would come from an "omni-accepter" such as yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I try to accept all religious views, however I just don't consider evolution to be something that religion has something to say about. Religion is good at questions about beginnings and endings, and I consider evolution to be as factual history as the Romans were.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised that this would come from an "omni-accepter" such as yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I try to accept all religious views, however I just don't consider evolution to be something that religion has something to say about. Religion is good at questions about beginnings and endings, and I consider evolution to be as factual history as the Romans were.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that doesn't excuse loaded terms ;) do you understand where I was coming from in my post?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also - here's an interesting theory - effect cannot exceed cause, correct? It's just illogical that it would. So how would a non-intelligent being (ie. energy in the big bang, or random enzymes) cause intelligence? That's violating cause & effect....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My solution: evolution overseen by a creator. This to me makes inifinitely more sense than random chance.

[killu69]

 

-stuff-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of contradictory and obfuscated ideas there.. I'd nitpick but you said you were in a rush and may need to explain more, so, could you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing that popped-out was that when you explained "option 1" it became the same as "option 2" and, just.. :-/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol i looked in my post and couldnt find the "stuff" that i wrote about so could you quote a bigger sentence or something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the explaining the two options the same here's is the basic jest.

 

 

 

1) the problem with the world being infinate is that it is changing and something that is eternal can not change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) The main question for the second option is where caused evolution? Because it is impossible for something to come from nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The uncaused cause-How did God come about then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were to walk into a room and see dominaos falling you would have to assume that something had to cause them to fall, because they cannot just fall on their own. Even though the domianos cause one another to fall after the they get started, it must be some outside force that caused the first one to fall. This is why the world has to have a creator, because it doesnt make sense to believe in infinate regression. The idea that believing that nothing caused the first dominao to fall, but instead they have always been falling infinatly in the past. This same logic can be used in figuring out what caused God. Nothing. If he had a cause, then what caused that cause, and so forth infinatly backward like the dominaos. God is uncaused and has just always been.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope that helps worm

[killu69]

 

And as for the part that evolution is a fact i would have to disagree. As even the leading advocates of it refer to it as a theory. There is not enough proof (not much at all actually) to confirm evolution as a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no proof?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) do you hiccup? thats proof

 

 

 

2) you have a collar bone? thats proof

 

 

 

3) look at the back of your hand,see the lines? thats proof

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why is this proof?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) fish hiccup to get rid of water in there lungs(or whatever). we hiccup, but we dont swim, its a fish attribute.

 

 

 

2) collar bones for walking on all fours, and i cant see many humans doing that...

 

 

 

3) the lines is the result of scales, if we didnt have scales, it would be smooth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats proof

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just b/c fish do somethign and so do we it doesnt mean that you can say we obtain that attribute from them. it's possible for two things to have the same attributes and be unrealated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

another problem with evolution are the missing links. A monkey cant be a monkey monkey monkey then all of the sudden its a man. Theres no fossils of the transitional stages.

[psycraft]

Maywest, just out of curiousity, could u post ur source for those numbers? I spent a few mins on google but didnt find anything near those.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another argument for evolution not mentioned would be how poorly designed life on this planet is. All materia on this planet are lethal to us in someway. What we refer to as a 'natural' death is the price we pay for breathing ( oxygen specific ), as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proteins and stuff ( not sure what everything is called in english lol ) we are built of do indeed look more like some piece of scrap created by pure coincidence then by some higher being. It is barely holding together and wont do so for too long. The time left for mankind was estimated to around 500k years if i dont remember wrong unless we manage to kill ourself, which is much more likely to happen :lol:

[Greatsilverwyrm]

 

 

-stuff-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of contradictory and obfuscated ideas there.. I'd nitpick but you said you were in a rush and may need to explain more, so, could you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing that popped-out was that when you explained "option 1" it became the same as "option 2" and, just.. :-/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-more stuff-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "-stuff-" was referring to your whole post. However, now that I re-read it, and it's not 2 in the morning, I think I misread it.. Sorry..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and don't call me "worm" .

[dusqi]

 

 

 

Also - here's an interesting theory - effect cannot exceed cause, correct? It's just illogical that it would. So how would a non-intelligent being (ie. energy in the big bang, or random enzymes) cause intelligence? That's violating cause & effect....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My solution: evolution overseen by a creator. This to me makes inifinitely more sense than random chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Random chance causes "intelligence" from time to time. Put a cat in a box with a string that can be pulled to release the catch on the door, and it'll randomly blunder around the box until it eventually waggles its paw near the string and the door opens. Repeat this 10 times over and by the 10th time it'll straight away waggle its paw at the string as soon as it's put in there. The cat seems intelligent, but in fact it doesn't have any insight into how the string works - it just knows that waggling its paw at the string will let it escape from the box.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with elements and intelligence. It's not as if intelligence has appeared from nothing. "Intelligence" is just the result of putting all the elements together in a certain way, which makes them work in an "intelligent" manner.

[unknownmasterofnothing]

I don't believe there was creation. I just think that everythign was just here already and we're living in this world. Evolution might have happened though.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

Also - here's an interesting theory - effect cannot exceed cause, correct? It's just illogical that it would. So how would a non-intelligent being (ie. energy in the big bang, or random enzymes) cause intelligence? That's violating cause & effect....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My solution: evolution overseen by a creator. This to me makes inifinitely more sense than random chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Random chance causes "intelligence" from time to time. Put a cat in a box with a string that can be pulled to release the catch on the door, and it'll randomly blunder around the box until it eventually waggles its paw near the string and the door opens. Repeat this 10 times over and by the 10th time it'll straight away waggle its paw at the string as soon as it's put in there. The cat seems intelligent, but in fact it doesn't have any insight into how the string works - it just knows that waggling its paw at the string will let it escape from the box.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same thing with elements and intelligence. It's not as if intelligence has appeared from nothing. "Intelligence" is just the result of putting all the elements together in a certain way, which makes them work in an "intelligent" manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and this random chance is so astronomically devoid of hope that leaves a creator I think even more possible than without evolution. I believe evolution basically proves a creator.

[my_pet_worm]

this is kinda like the chicken and the egg question, which came first?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i just heard on the news an hour ago that they sent a space shuttle to crash into a comet, and see what the insides like. they say it will explain a bit more on how earth was formed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and don't call me "worm" .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

im worm, he's wyrm, im kinda offended you called him me :D

[paul_wilson]

lol, y do u get scared? Yes, there's some church's that yell at the congregation, but I don't see that as right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well i get a weird feeling when i walk into a church. And the high roof and the stained glass windows with "jesus" nailed to a cross.

 

 

 

BTW i cant get how a punishment that was around at the time became the symbol for a religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

back on topic, many people have said it so i wont quote them but i think there is more proof to evolution that there is a book that, from what i have gathered from documentries is a collection of i thing Gosples or something that are a collection of stories that have been told and retold till they where writen.

 

 

 

im most probly wrong but roughly on track with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i just find something with scientific, logical backing to be more beleivable than a 2000 (probly more i dont know) year old book.

[Death_By_Pod]

The people who say that god made the world and evolution took off from there are actually supporters of evolution. Evolution makes no claim to as how we got here but is only describing the process of change. It is pretty clear just looking about that things change and adapt and that's all evolution is about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When comparing Evolution with Creationism (or intelligent Design), it is not the theory of god (or "something") creating the universe but god (or "something") crafting every single species. That is what we are talking about the animal part of creationism as Evolution makes no claim about where the universe comes from. If you want to compare all of creationism with something you will need to compare it to a theory of everything since creationism is the bible's 'everything'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So tell me does it really make sense that something out there hand crafted every single animal out there, why? It is clear we have a mechanism for change (reproduction) and a reason for change (the environment) so why would we according to creationism be unable to adapt? Why did god create 85,000 species of Diptera (flies), 38 species of mice and only 12 known species of man with only 1 being alive today?

 

 

 

There just seems too much of a coincidence to see a correlation between the number of species and how quickly a population can grow.

 

 

 

This doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t sound terribly scientific however it is just a logical observation. There are dozen's of pieces of evidence for evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This pretty much sums it up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking at this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You begin to see why people can be sceptical about evolution. We can See A and B but there are so many shades in-between that makes it seem like it's doing nothing. This also brings up the idea of speciation and when it happens. Someone said earlier it is when two animals from the same species can't produce offspring but why does nature all of a sudden stop allowing species too reproduce the line can seem almost arbitrary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally I want to say that you can have an effect without a cause. Depending on how you define it I personally think that Quantum Tunnelling and Quantum Fluctuations (such as particle-anti particle pairs coming in and out of existence all the time) are two good examples of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoever said that evolution only has a 1 in 10^256 chance of happening; lets assume this is true, then what if there were 10^256 alternate universes then the chance of evolution and hence a living consciousness existing in a universe is 1.

 

 

 

If you attempt to understand the concept of nothing you quickly see how silly the idea that our unique universe and anything else doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist, it makes you wonder what would make our universe unique and everything else nothing in the first place if there was nothing previous to the big bang. The only logical way I can think about it is that there are an infinite number of alternate universes to counteract the idea of nothingness outside our universe otherwise the chances of me typing this post is worse then the probability of the theory of evolution existing.

[dusqi]

 

 

 

Yeah, and this random chance is so astronomically devoid of hope that leaves a creator I think even more possible than without evolution. I believe evolution basically proves a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But... I look around... at what we've discovered... and no matter what the 'odds' are (how do you even create the "odds" of life evolving intelligently?), I see the evidence that evolution did occur, no matter how unlikely it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe a creator set off evolution by creating the first unlikely spark of life, or maybe it did happen completely randomly, but evolution did occur.

[Pur304]

I think that the universe to perfect, too precise, too maintained to be made just like that. Creationism explains this and also explains why the universe was made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution actually rellies on chance far too much for me. The universe just happened to be there? Two planets just collided and meteorites from other planets happened to hit earth devilering bacteria? And that bacteria happened to form into the mightiest of beings on Earth, Humans? How did that bacteria survive and how did whatever evolutionary form humans were survive an ice age and a huge meteor that devasted the earth? There is more faith required to believe in evolution than creation in my oppinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God made us a lot different to animals, he doesnt call us animals, he calls us man. Becauswe were made in his image (which means his attributes and traits like emotion, intelligence, ability to learn and love). In Gods eyes we humans are superior to animals, because we have souls and animals dont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If bacteria, animals, etc. evolved there must be a purpose yes? Well what was the purpose of the universe? did just happen to be there? To be so huge, so structured, so powerful yet it has no purpose? And it just happened to be there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is just a gamble, a coincidence, a chance (a very small chance at that).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides Going off how the world was made for a little bit, An atheist believes when he/she dies, thats it for everyone. A believer in the almighty believes there is an afterlife, and that the almighty rewards those who have faith with eternal life in heaven. If the atheist is right, whoopty doo! They dont gain or lose anything, and neither dose the believer. But if the believer is right he/she gains everything and the atheist is lost forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excuse my poor grammar and spelling if you see it.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and this random chance is so astronomically devoid of hope that leaves a creator I think even more possible than without evolution. I believe evolution basically proves a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But... I look around... at what we've discovered... and no matter what the 'odds' are (how do you even create the "odds" of life evolving intelligently?), I see the evidence that evolution did occur, no matter how unlikely it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe a creator set off evolution by creating the first unlikely spark of life, or maybe it did happen completely randomly, but evolution did occur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what I believe :P that a creator started the evolutionary process... even as a Christian, looking into the Hebrew in the first chapter of the Bible, the word for day, when literally translated from Hebrew has about 60 defintions, for example it could mean year, age, era (the word is 'Yom').

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But in my life whether evolution occured or not is really a non-issue :P

[psycraft]

I think that the universe to perfect, too precise, too maintained to be made just like that. Creationism explains this and also explains why the universe was made...If bacteria, animals, etc. evolved there must be a purpose yes? Well what was the purpose of the universe? did just happen to be there? To be so huge, so structured, so powerful yet it has no purpose? And it just happened to be there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There isnt a single tiny piece of evidence that life or matter has any purpose at all, in fact, why would it have? All life that might have arose before the universe reaches its final state are bound for destruction, and no new lifeforms would be able to come into existance when the universe do fall asleep, or how to describe the state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is just a gamble, a coincidence, a chance (a very small chance at that).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maywest posted the figure 1 to 10^256 chance of 'life' coming into existance also. The only problem with this argument is that if the void in which our universe sprung to life is infinite, one could say that if it happened at least once ( our universe ), it must have happened a infinite amount of times. This would mean that all events which dont have exactly zero chance of occuring will and has occured an infinite amount of times, which renders the argument "the chance is so small it could not have happened" invalid.

[insane]

Psycraft... the problem with the "void" always existing is that it isn't just a 'void', it contains energy and/or matter. The problem is, there are thermodynamic laws stating that after a large enough amount of time, *all* energy and matter in a closed system break down into it's smallest particles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how come this energy that has always been is excepted from this Law? it seems kind of convenient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the fossil evidence is quite too much minute to support evolution...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what about the Cambrian explosion Dusqi?

[psycraft]

The 'void' i referred to was the theoretical perfect space in which our universe exists, only problem with that reasoning is that it means our universe exists in itself, as our definition of 'universe' is everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thermodynamic laws needs time to apply, in 0 degrees kelvin, perfect space, time stands still in effect.

[Astralinre]

The thermodynamic laws needs time to apply, in 0 degrees kelvin, perfect space, time stands still in effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, at least our perception of time stands still, as it relies on motion. But who's to say that time is limited by our perception of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if there was no time or motion in this void, how could our universe come into being in it and function in it?

[expertgamer]

i'm religious, this is how i've seen the worst kinds from each category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are those who blindly follow their religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are those who blindly follow what scientists tell them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sometimes a scientist's fact can be swayed by their personal opinion on a matter, and i'm referring to religion in no way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now realize, when talking about the 'chance' in everything occuring, what has been presented as the scientific creation, how the world came to be and what happened in it, is the only logical scientific explanation there could be. when taking out the creation of this world by the Almighty, the only possible explanation is an extreme chain of luck by different events. this is because it is the only explanation that works scientifically outside of Creation. i thought in science there was no luck, there is chance, so sorry for saying luck, but it's easier to say that than "a string of low chance events taking place one after another". just for faster typing, ah i spelled it anyway haha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A COMMON, UNDER EDUCATED MIS CONCEPTION: the Bible is a book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible is not a book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why do you see different names infront of passages? because it is from a different book OF the bible. there are 66 books within the Bible, all from different time periods, only a small amount written by the same people, the majority coming from different sources, but they all center around the same God. they decided to take all of the books that had been reproduced for teaching, and gather them together into one collection so that all knowledge and Good Word could be together conveniently, this didn't happen til hundreds of years after Jesus' first coming. the Bible was not written, many different books were written, it was decided to gather all the holy writings and teachings together to educate the masses. the Bible was not distributed to the public until around the mid-late first millenium, i think the 1500s.

[psycraft]

Well, at least our perception of time stands still, as it relies on motion. But who's to say that time is limited by our perception of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was just a quick thought i had. Im not sure if its correct that time stand still at 0 degrees kelvin, seems logical to me tho since the lack of energy would prevent any events of any kind. Time are just an human invention. A scientist would most likely tell you 'time' is just another dimension you can move in. But since i have no concept of 4d objects i cant really argue about it :oops:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if there was no time or motion in this void, how could our universe come into being in it and function in it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well it seems like you can sum up any theory about the creation of the universe to absolute nothingness ( whether there is a 'void' or not ) strives to become everything, how and why are questions i dont think mankind will ever get answers to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its fun arguing about tho :wink:

[dusqi]

And what about the Cambrian explosion Dusqi?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the first I've heard of it, and so I admit that all I know is just from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion Presumably you are referring to the claim that all life sprang from this one organism during the Cambrian explosion, suggesting that there was a divine influence placing the organism on Earth. This is part of what Wikipedia has to say on the subject, as I said before I don't claim to be an expert at all:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The debate centers in part around an earlier notion that all phyla in existence today (and all others now extinct) except one were first found in this period. This would be as if one were pacing off the length of a football field (starting 4 bya), when between paces 78 and 79 all the different phyla suddenly sprang into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to more recent research, only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. On talkorigins.org, in response to the Creationist claim of sudden appearance, Mark Isaak [isaak 2004] gives the following summary:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants post-date the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya [brown 1999].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian [Wang et al. 1999]. Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla don't appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference [Collins 1994], 11 of 32 metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, 8 after the Cambrian, and 12 have no fossil record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian were unlike any fish alive today.

 

 

 

[my_pet_worm]

god: all belief, you can touch, smell, taste, hear, or see god

 

 

 

evolution: touch your self, taste your self(dont bite though), hear yourself, see your self, smell your self, your doing this to evolution

[Cloaked_Shadow]

 

they did a survey in New Zealand

 

 

 

it went something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55% of people have never been in a church before

 

 

 

35% of people only went in there for funerals/weddings

 

 

 

7% only go in there once a year

 

 

 

3% go in there atleast once a week

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ooookkkkk.....try to make posts on topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, greatsilverwyrm, the frog to cow was intentional. But that's the base of evoultion, from 1 to another. Dog to dolphin if you'd like... Also...creation does come back to christians, since they are the 1's who believe in it, so u might get religious posts. Since creation u'd need a higher power to make you, religion plays a part in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muslims also believe in creation...i also think jews do im not sure about them. I'm sorry if this was posted i didnt take the time to read the enitire thread.