Elementary Particles (Electrons, Neutrons, Protons) Combined to form atoms. Atoms combined to form molecules, and molecules evolve. This didn't happen overnight. Keep in mind this happened over THREE and ONE HALF BILLION years. ONE BILLION EQUALS ONE THOUSAND MILLION. Creation Didn't Happen in One Seven Day Week! As stated in the Christian Holy Book, or Even the Quran. Well, you are Brainwashed, there's no talking logic to you.(or Creationists in General)\nWhereas if you would give up your dogma long enough to comprehend the story of evolution, which proves itself on a daily basis, just look at nature. I am in awe at the intricacies of nature, no need for some HOLY SANTA CLAUSE to soothe away my IGNORANCE. May your GOD keep sheltering you from the truth, I hope you are happy in your eternal ignorance. - Mr. Michael S. Becker
215081
One thing for sure, HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM PRIMATES.\n\nLife was formed out of Africa.  All humans were first Black Men and Women.  Other races are "Mutations" of the original Black Men and Women of Africa.
455313
Let me guess, you are another integrity-challenged redneck looking for "I agree, evolution is stupid"... well sorry to disappoint.\n\n1) Why did you forget to say "did God create itself from nothing?" Otherwise, who knows.\n\n2) As it happens speciation has been observed yes. And, of course, the fossil record shows "one species becoming another" in droves.\n\n3) Well over the past few thousand years we HAVE evolved resistance to a whole host of terrible diseases. Seems like we have a lot fewer problems there.
13671
heres the deal.\nevolution only shows what MIGHT have happened if everything DID happen by RANDOM CHANCE. the chance of one protien molicual forming by random chance is 1/10^65.\nthats a small number.\nand thats only 1 simple molicule- not to metion the hundreds of other more complex ones.\nwould you believe me if I told you I saw a tornado go through a junk yard and randomly put to gether a shiny red caddy?every little detail from the headlights to the liscens plate?perfectly? probably not.\nbut thats what evolution is-- something happened randomly and put together this perfectly running,accuatly designed planet so that if 1 thing were to be off by more then 5 degrees life would end?\n\nand another thing--evolution doesnt show how the universe started.AND there is no proof that the universe is expanding(supporting the big bang theory).there is no way to show the stars and galexies are moving away from each other, is there?\nevolution just doesnt make logical sence because according to it, the universe has just been exploding and contracting for all of time and it did not have a beginning or end, which everything has to have.\nif we looked at how the Bible tells us, it would make a lil more sence.it says God created everything (intellegent design) INCLUDING TIME.He created all the dimentions and banned us to them to see if we would trust Him or not.\nand the Bible says clearly "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" it doesnt say He might have, or there is some proof that, or there is a possibility He could hev, it says He DID.and if you dont belive the Bible, think about this--it say that Gods word (the Bible) will last forever... and so far it is the oldest most sold book of history, not to mention the most prooven.\nspeaking of proof, ever wondered why there seems to be no proof of God? chck this out.\nMatthew 16:4 (New International Version)\nNew International Version (NIV)\nCopyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society\n\n    \n4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.\n\nproof enough?\n\nand one more thing-- if you call someone names to try to make them and their ideas look less then you, it obviously means that you are trying to cover up something... such as your stubborness to your disprooves hypothosis' that YOU want to believe.\n\nAnd when you die and God says,"I dont know you" just remember i tried to warned you.\n\n\nfoot note to dvdi14-- thats not evolution.same thign with the so called moth evolution--there was smog in englend which darkend the trees so the whit moths showed up better an got eaten more and the brown moths were camoflaged.
529843
You asked, so here are the answers to all your questions:\n\n1. Plants, not God. Specifically phytoplankton for most of the oxygen. Research the carbon cycle and photosynthesis. Its a naturally stabilizing system, and I would love to explain how it works but will spare you the details on the assumption that you are capable of learning on your own.\n\n2. The laws of physics: the planet isn't about to suddenly stop or speed up! And what's so special about 365 and 24? Who is to say that life couldn't have evolved to fit, say, 36 and 512? Incidentally, the human body happens to follow a 25 hour cycle instead of 24 if deprived of visual clues like clocks and brightness.\n\n3. Don't know. Who or what started God? Its like asking if the chicken came before the egg either way. And please don't tell me that the appearance of an intelligent force is any less ridiculous than the appearance of a whole bunch of matter/energy.\n\n4. Synthesized from pure energy in the aftermath of the big bang, which just brings us back to 3. Once again, you can read more on the big bang and advanced physics if you feel the need, or use Yahoo to find explanations!
437833
everybody is coming up with the same stupid stuff on creation again and again. instead of thousand years why cant you make it 1 billion years. so that your problem is solved. bible is happy and the scientists are also happy. because it is closer to thier estimate of the age of this universe.\n\nthe calculations mentioned in bible are taken literally out of the "book of Dzyan". ofcourse with a little changes to suit to thier tastes so that it looks very different. going by the events in history all biblical characters were of recent origin, 3000 BCE. this has been confirmed many times. firstly by believers of bible initially and later on by scientific evidence. on that count there is no difference of opinion.\n\nneither during early days of genesis nor till recently anybody was bothered about the age of universe. everything revolved around what is written in genesis. genesis has a strong basis to believe that thier world was created about 6000 years ago. that is true. that part of the world, around israel, middle east there were lot of geological changs happened. lot of people displaced and when the new race came into the land they needed a fiction. so it fits perfectly well with genesis. no doubt genesis is correct on the accuracy of begining of human settlement in israel and surrounding middle east areas around 3800-3600 BCE. when a new faith is started,  it needs a new look, its just old wine in new bottle with a little changes while serving it.\n\nthe cosmos has seven rounds/phase to reach the pinnacle, so whoever wrote genesis just took it for seven days. infact we are in the four round/phase where the human beings evolved. by seventh everything will be returned back to god and the next cycle/round/phase will start again. currently we are in the middle of the cycle. around  4-5 billion years. the cosmos keeps expanding and new things & beings will evolve over time. then the contraction & collapse will be much faster. only to expand again. doesnt it looks like a play? yes, god loves to play. he enjoys the play and so he plays it.\n\nnow your question: how long does it take for god to create in our time. nothing. my answer is NOTHING. because he did not create. he was evolving himself into all kinds of beings.  he is everywhere, in everything. that is the beauty of god. he keeps churning everything. cosmos is so vast. we human beings are not able to understand what the earth properly. so thinking in cosmic proprtion is difficult for many. yes, there are human beings who have achieved this cosmic alingment with god. god just attracts everything like a magnet, some attract much faster than other. we have to be intune with nature, god.\n\ncreation/evolution are not different. they are two sides of the same coin. religions unnecessarily created this one sided theory and scientists continue to hold on to thiers.\n\ni do not find anything difficult in understanding this cosmos. with or without god. because everything is divine, godly.
153373
Well, there IS a good explanation. The story about creation is a way how simple people explained stuff to themselves. \nYou see, if you read the creation theory, you'll see the things appeared in the similar order than they actually did. \nAt first, there was "light", which of course means the glowing mass of gasses and molten metals in the emptiness of space. When it cooled down and the water condensed, they became earth and water. \nLater on, then plants appeared, after them the animals and as the last one, humans, which are only about thirty thousand years old. \n\nIf you try to represent this to simple people, as the peoples of near east 2000 years ago no doubt were, you'll have trouble making them understand what 65 million years is and how come a dinosaur would evolve from an one-cell creature. So you make up a god and tell them the story happened in 7 days and they go away happy with their own understanding of the process. \n\nIt's basically the same, just VERY simple. \n\nWhat I don't understand, however, is HOW the hell nowadays, in the era of computers and high technology, some EQUALLY simple people can exist. \nWell, for THEM, the theory of evolution CERTAINLY doesn't exist, their mentality remained at the same point of functioning as it was 2000 or even 5000 years ago, I'm afraid.
666546
It's an age-old question, and one that is the very basis of religion.  It's incredible that we can understand both the creation of the universe and the creation of life itself.  We're very lucky to live in this time!\n\nGood comment for "brainless".
517332
"Creation" and "Evolution" are two different processes, I think.\n\nThey are easier to understand for me if I put them into different "frameworks".\n\nIf there shall be some "beginning" of every item in the world, there shall be also "Creation". But, in opposite, if we are satisfied with the idea of constant continuation - without any beginning and any end - we do not have to think this idea anymore.\n\n"Evolution" is something which can be proved everyday. I work as a microbiologist and small modifications of living creatures is very obvious for me.\n\nThere are still many open questions which can be placed between "Creation" and Evolution". One of my "favourite problem" is the beginning of DNA-based living creatures: DNA needs enzymes to be constructed, and enzymes need DNA to be produced. Which is the probability of an event where both DNA and enzymes (and such forms of them which are interconnected!) can be formed exactly in the same time? 0,00000000000000000000....%?\n\nAs a conclusion: I thrust on "Evolution" but I see also "Creation", managed by "X" (you can replace "X" by "God", "Engineer" or whatever you like). They are not alternatives for ones thinking; they have a peaceful coexistence in our world.
183227
Thank you I am so glad someone asked that question. You are so right on that. If you think about it, yeah evolution is scientifically proven so there's no denying that. But if you are arguing on the side of creationism than you have to realize that there really is no denying science. You can't deny a fact such as gravity exists. It's just there and no bible can disprove that. So if you combine both theories there shouldnt be an ragument at all. God created the universe; that's the explanation for the "big boom" and then he created humans. Humans and all other cretures of the universe naturally evolved from his creation. Now how hard is it to accept the fact that that's probably the most logical explanation out there?
116439
Supposedly the universe is estimated to be about 13.6 billion years old.  I think I read that on Wikipedia, though, so you never know...\n\nThat said, I really have so little idea what is out there or what conditions are necessary for life to arise that I don't know which theory is more plausible.  How flexible are the conditions that lead to the formation of primative cells on Earth?  Can there be life based on an entirely different set of molecules?  An entirely different set of elements (i.e. not carbon based)?  How many other planets have chemical compositions and climates like Earth?  Did life even originate on Earth? (I've heard the theory that primative cells could have originated on another planet and been brought here on an asteroid).  Could primative cells have left Earth on some sort of asteroid and taken up residence elsewhere?\n\nI'd like to think there's other life out there, just because it makes things more interesting.  Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'll assume there is.
168212
That is the paradox of "creationism" and renders the concept to be idiotic.\n\nCreationists claim complex life required creation without bothering to explain how their creator just sprang into existence, or always existed.\n\nThe simplest & most logical explanation is to take out the middle man ("God"). The universe has always existed.
415823
Hmmm...very theoretical of an answer you pursue there, my friend.\n\nSince our limted senses are not able to confirm our speculations, I shall speak in a dialect to the speculations only.\n\nThe matter and energy hols themselves in individual co-relation, and would cease to exist in this paradox without each other.\n\nThe Big Bang itself holds itself as a theory due to the sole fact, that the Universe is observed to have expanded, and it supports Einstein's theories as well. \n\nIn such an accordance, energy is prone to have evolved into matter, from Einstein's equation, which seems to be pretty logical, due to the colossal amount of energy at that point in time, that may have resulted in the formation of Universe.\n\nAs the theory goes, the 'infinite' amount of energy was existant for only a millisecond or so. It blast was followed by the formation of waves, which collapsed into miniscule particles we call photon, electron, and neutron and perhaps some other form of matter. This matter furthermore bonded together to give birth to the present Universe.\n\nWhat is actually amazing is the very fact, that all this occured in a few seconds. The forces took over and resulted in various formations, that we bear to our knowledge. We ourselves bear credit to such particles. The concept of life is a debatable query, yet it may hold itself in a form of energy as well. A sort of self-functioning energy that holds this matter in a co-ordinated existence. What we call memory, emotions and other fragments of our brain, could be a manifestation of this energy as well. Perhaps energy bears itself true to the 'spirit' as we address it. \n\nWhatever the matter, yet one factuality is in the least doubt. Matter cannot produced, nor destroyed, for just a creation or devastation would bear no fundaments to it, for energy holds itself responsible for every action. Such a creation/devastation would be like killing death. Heh he...\n\nTill next time, my friend, adieu!
629152
Sure time was created! Genesis 1:5b: And there was evening and there was morning, one day. It's a matter of faith not science. Science holds onto the big-bang, which seperates it out form being created. Therefore, science cannot find a begining.
367407
Everybody who answered is right it turns to ice at -5c. Not really a hard question to be honest. If you factor in pressure then you can make things more even. If you decrease the pressure of the -5c water and up the pressure (atmos) of the 25c you can change the internal state of the water, thus effecting the travel time of the ball.\n\nAbout your point about the bible. No offence, but God didn't come down and write the bible. Mortals wrote the bible, infact every holy book in the world was written by mortals (the bible wasn't written by jesus). It's a collection of tales regarding jesus life as told by people who were with him. So essentially it's somebodys point of view of what they belive jesus meant when he said whatever he said. You could study the bible for years, but if you believed everything your read in it most of the advanced physics classes would contradict what is said in it. \n\nWater to Wine?\nH20 to C2H6O-(residual acids from grapes)? Hardly, they can just about convert graphite to diamond (same molecules)\n\nWorld in 7 days?\nNo offence, stating God has to 'rest' is tantamount to saying he's mortal. In that sense you say God somehow needs to take 6 days to create earth. How long did it take him to create Mars? Venus? Jupiter? The Sun? The galaxy? The notion is to constricted, i personally belive that the universe is some derivative of God, the anti matter paradox, the balance of electrons/protons is just something which smacks of God.\n\nWorld 6000 years old?\nCarbon dating is a fact. We have artifacts much older 6000 years old. Look at dinosaurs for example. In the rock, we work through layers to find fossils from millions of years ago. Did god happen to make earth in its form with these fossils embedded? For what reason?\n\nAdam And Eve\nIt doesn't hold. To believe it would infact advocate evolution. Just where did everybody else come from? i mean did God put every person of colour on this world. Surely all these people would also know about God on his terms, which would assume everybody in the world would know about catholism and the bible. In fact, this whole adam and eve thing is written in the bible 2000 years ago. So between god creating the earth and jesus being born, 4000 years, nobody knows about adam and eve, then suddenly 2000 years ago it's mainstream fact. Yet hindus choose to worship multiple gods, different religions of islam, budahism, jewish etc thrive around the world. Whats going on here? Just why did all these people who God may have placed around the world choose to forget their roots? If you don't believe God put all the other races in the world on earth, but belive they all decended from adam and eve's children ... then lets talk about evolution. Another taboo in the bible. How the hell did you get black babies from a white adam and eve. Lets suppose adam and eve were black, how do you get white babies from two black parents. Adam is white, eve is black - where do oriental people come from. It's inconceivable to think that all the races in this world came from two people. Genetically it's not possible\n\nThe Ark\nEvery animal that exists on the earth today is here because God put it here. Since evolution is not allowed, then every animal that exists, from the ant, the the lion, to the caterpillar must have been saved at some point on the ark. You can't argue that fact. Now how long do you think it would have taken Noah to go round the globe picking up every animal that exists today. 1 day? Lets bear in mid, there are no trains, aeroplanes or busses. Noah would literally have to go to every corner of the globe. This would assume that noah actually discovered america first, and australia, and asia and the carribean and the galapogos etc. The next thing is, once he has two of every animal, he needs a boat big enough to house them all. And not just to house the animals, but the space needed for the food to feed them. Lets nor forget th
640794
We're living in strange times. We can explore the outer reaches of our solar system, create machines that will scan inside our bodies and yet there is still this strong acceptance that the world was created in 7 days - I find it a bizarre, compelling contradiction.\nI think, as with many things, it's a case of dogma overshadowing reason. I think that maybe people don't want to know about evolution so they just don't bother to research it. But it fascinates me how somehting like this can prove to be such a huge threat to religious belief.
83294
This is a topic that sets a lot of people off. Mainly creationism states god created everything, and the burden of evolution is, it being based on science, it must have hard evidence to prove the existance of evolution.\n\nSince Origin of the Species by Chales Darwin in 1859, moutains of evidence has come forward to prove that evolution is behind every living creature on earth. The one weak linkis that evolution hasn't yet been able to prove how life first started. It is this one point that creationist harp on, and state as their proof that god is behind everything.\n\nIt must be noted that until recent times teh age of the Earth was only believed to be 10,000 years old, this has been disproven. It can also be compared to medevil times when the world was considered flat and it was thought that the earth lay in the center of the universe. In time science will find a solid explination for everything that we consider impossible today.\n\nAs a chemist and a scientist, there are many things in science that boil down to beautiful mathmatical relationships, or theories that are very simple yet profound implications. What I believe, is that who was ever here before the universe made a very complex yet elegant system of particles and enegrgetic interactions that give us the world today. What I have against creationsim is that it doesn't seek to find the real awnser; their reasoning is that it is too complex to be understood, despite historical evidence of things being not understood only to be explained in good detail later. The people that say the bottom line in science is too complex to understand today are the same people who believed that the world was flat 800 years ago. \n\nWikipedia has a good breakdown on evolution and opinion, hope my thoughts helped
164664
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?