I hate to stir anything more up but I can't resis

---

pseudo-intellectualism my friend

People didn't come from rocks, or anything like that. We were hydrogen atoms, just like everything else in the universe. I don't know about anyone else, but I enjoy the thought of having this physical bond with everything.

Cool so my baby pictures were actually atoms. How adorable.That's actually disturbing to me. Am I related to the tree outside? Aren't carnivores killing their brethren and aren't we considered cannibals? By right we are all evil blood/fruit thirsty murderers. What happened to morals??? This world is a disgrace!

Yes, you are distantly related to the tree outside, carnivores are indeed killing their cousins but we are not cannibals as that actually only refers to eating one of your own species.

Where did that split happen that set animals apart from plants?

Early at the single-celled level, but after the evolution of the nucleus.

I think there are limits to evolution that no one is acknowledging except for this book I am currently reading. I know one book will not be enough to convince everyone but it will start to stir up ideas and questions. The book is called "The Edge of Evolution" by Dr. Michael J. Behe.

It was written and published in 2007-2008. So the information in it can be considered very reliable and new.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: damien...Jesus came and said "No more. It ain't working. Here's a better way."Maybe I'm taking what you said a tad too literal, but does that not ruin God's whole infallibility thing? His first rules turned out to be crap so he came up with new ones. I think the problem might be in my very colloquial paraphrase more than anything. It wasn't a matter of God trying something that He though would work, only to find out it wouldn't. God knew from the beginning how things would turn out. He planned the whole crucifixion thing before He even gave the Mosaic law.

How do you know that?

Of course there are limits to evolution, what kind of limits do you think that we're not acknowledging?

Let me assure you cooldawg. NOTHING by Michael Behe is reliable for any use. I know you're very young, but I wish you would try to develop better intellectual habits by trying to look at legitimate work in these fields rather than ideologues with an agenda to promote.

Well first of all, there are rarely any beneficial mutations to speak of. I admit there are some that can be great. But the system of transcription and translation is nearly fault-proof. It rarely ever makes mistakes. Also, there should be a lot more transitional species than we've seen so far. We've seen some, but wouldn't you expect them to be so numerous that evolution from scratch to now would be completely easy to go along with?

So what if it's a rare occurrence? Do you know how much time has gone by in the history of Earth alone? The time is so great that the rarity can happen many times in a large span of time.No, since the newer species had such better advantages that the previous ones couldn't keep up.

It's an extremely rare occurrence, especially with animals, bacteria is easy to get more beneficial mutations due to the rapid reproduction rate. You're assuming that a long period of time is the solution to this and it's not. There should be many more transitional species than we see, even Darwin himself admitted this.

Saying, "Darwin admitted this or that," is a poor argument, since he was around in the very infancy of the idea of evolution and has nowhere near the evidence we do now.

And the long period of time was referring to the rarity of a mutation, not the transition species themselves. The temperature on the Earth has varied so much over the many years that many species not suited would end up extinct. Things like ice ages and mini ice ages, as well as global warming, and when I say global warming I'm not talking about now. There have been many times of global warming in the history of the Earth. These are just some of the examples of how much the environments of the world have changed that could potentially cause the extinction to some species but not others.

Quote:Saying, "Darwin admitted this or that," is a poor argument, since he was around in the very infancy of the idea of evolution and has nowhere near the evidence we do now. wasn't it his idea though?

Quote:Saying, "Darwin admitted this or that," is a poor argument, since he was around in the very infancy of the idea of evolution and has nowhere near the evidence we do now. wasn't it his idea though?

No. He brought the idea of Natural Selection to the public's eye (others had tried before). And even if it had been his idea, there are many other ideas that people have come up with long ago that we have a much better understanding of now than they did then. We understand much more about Calculus than Newton did.

so he didn't form the theory of evolution? Then the text books in all the public schools are wrong. And why do they refer to evolution as Darwanism? this is all false information.