<p>keep in mind that nucleic acids were found as well as proteins</p>
<p>"How does a self-replicating molecule lead to a cell? And yes, I would say that it is still improbable even given the large timeframe."</p>
<p>You haven't even taken the time to do basic research, so you're essentially just talking out of your ass, and with finality at that: "I would say it is still improbable..." You don't even know how it works or anything about the process! This is what's so aggravating about this sort of debate.</p>
<p>I just remembered that Dawkins had phrased this much more lucidly than myself:</p>
<p>"If I don't understand Quantum Mechanics or Relativity the last thing I should reasonably expect to be able to do is get away with criticising it as though my opinion had as much weight as that of a person who spent a professional lifetime studying it. Yet, alone amongst the sciences, the theory of evolution is considered fair game for criticism by people of any level of ignorance."</p>
<p>the burden of proof is on the affirmative.
in this case, vinny is arguing that god exists.
therefore, he should be bringing forward the proof, not us.</p>
<p>God does exists and I say anybody who says he doesn't, will find out when he/she is dead. :p </p>
<p>I can't wait to die. I'm just waiting for that big day to see all the importance that was extinguished in the past now before my eyes.</p>
<p>I can't tell if buddyguy is a facetious idiot or just an idiot.</p>
<p>Thanks Debaser. That's called elitism. As for the Dawkins quote and such, isn't that basically just another way of saying "you don't agree with me, so you're ignorant"? The intelligent design people, who I certainly do not agree with on everything, are scientists making valid points, and they basically just get written off as idiots. That's not scientific in the least. And of course I haven't done any research, I'm in high school. A normal high school, not a rich suburban high school.</p>
<p>Some of you seem to be arguing whether god exists or if science dictates our world. i do believe in god, but i also believe that science is process of understanding God's tools if you will. People say that God works in mysterious ways. Well who is to say that he didn't use the rules of science and nature to form our world. Why can't a scientific theory like evolution explain one of the biggest miracles that has ever been performed? The bible is very symbolica and cannot always be taken literally. God made man and woman. How? Why not evolution?</p>
<p>P.S. Any of you ever read Inherit the Wind</p>
<p>No drummerdude, it's not. Read the quote again. You know what it means, you're either being intellectually dishonest or you just don't get it.</p>
<p>The Intelligent Design people are being written off because they are a Christian Lobbyist group, who is trying to have their curricula forceably inserted into the science classroom. Their ideas are simply thinly veiled religion, AND NOT SCIENCE. They are not true scientists, they are con-men.</p>
<p>You're saying you can't research this because you don't go to a rich kids high school? Are you ****ing kidding me? READ A GODDAMN BOOK. Or perhaps, the internet? Talkorigins.org? Wikipedia? MIT OCW? Any one of thousands of websites? I can't believe the audacity of this statement. If you have no desire to understand what evolution is, then you have no leg to stand on in debating it.</p>
<p>Shell, the mixing of evolutionism & creationism is one of my biggest pet peeves. If God had formed the world in that way, I think He would have stated that clearly. I believe in a literal six-day creation (the seventh was a day of rest).</p>
<p>It's true that we are tempted to write off any and everything said against our own positions. I, for one - whenever I see or hear "proof" for evolution - immediately wish to set out to DISprove it. But I don't spend my time researching scientific things, and I don't plan to become a scientist. My interests are more heavily rooted in the humanities, particularly English and theater.</p>
<p>I suppose one reason I would not want to be a scientist is that, as a Christian, I would be ridiculed. No matter what "proof" I found for creation, the evolutionists would assume it is inherently flawed and would set out to DISprove it (or simply say YOU'RE WRONG, YOU RELIGIOUS FREAK, as some Christians are tempted to tell them, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU ANTI-RELIGIOUS FREAK).</p>
<p>Erm.</p>
<p>I really do need to study up on evolution vs. creation ~ I know basics but I never get into the details, which is unfortunate. And somebody needs to do a double-blind study on carbon dating, because it's pretty wacky but "nobody" (i.e., no real scientists since anyone who doesn't believe in evolution cannot be a "real" scientist according to many people) believes that.</p>
<p>lavendercloud. human migration has been traced as far back as 50,000 years ago, in which these scientists can pin point the exact area where certain traits were inherited along the human migration paths. There is a particular scientists at Stanford who has retraced human history from Africa all the way to North America through specific genetic markers. Not to mention the fact that primate chromosomal evolution was shown in 1993. </p>
<p>I just dont get how you can look at all of these facts and just brush them aside. </p>
<p>shell, dont listen to him!</p>
<p>lavendar, you really have an alarming misconception about scientists. I believe 40% of the scientific community believes in God, yet well over 99% support evolution. The Pope himself endorses evolution. You make it sound impossible to separate the metaphysical and physical world.</p>
<p>You place so much value in the Bible, a book written by MAN. It is riddled with contradictions and incredible mistranslations (notably, the "virgin" Mary, which was a grievous error--"virgin" should be "young woman." Kind of changes a few things, eh?). Though, despite all this, you're arguing against literally mountains of scientific evidence?</p>
<p>notably, the "virgin" Mary, which was a grievous error--"virgin" should be "young woman." </p>
<p>Who told you that, Debaser? Dan Brown? Or did you just manifest that accusation in your mind? You have been reading the Da Vinci Code way too much I reckon!</p>
<pre><code>Bob, human migration across the Bering Strait has found to be very recent migration. Bodies exhoumed(sp?) from the arctic permafrost show that the bodies are rather young( only a few thousand years)
</code></pre>
<p>Debaser, I think you clearly have your own misconceptions. The virgin Mary a bad translation? That's at least as much a kooky conspiracy theory as Intelligent Design. You have also gone way beyond debunking anything here. As a matter of fact, I have read talkorigins.com and relevant Wikipedia articles. The difference is that I've read the other side as well. You obviously have not. If that is what you meant by research I stand corrected. But notice how you, as well, have shown nothing to back up your statements other than writing off everyone who disagrees with you as religious nuts. You must at least agree that many who believe in ID have PhDs in the sciences from prestigious universities. You cannot write them all off as crazy. That's not scientific debate, that's concensus science. Now it must be noted that I do not really believe in ID, although it does make a few valid points, especially in astrophysics. What I don't get is why, when scientists, as opposed to creationism, advocate these ideas that might be wrong, there is as much ranting about religious nuts as their is actual scientific arguments. The secular scientists are often taking the completely unscientific approach on the matter. They react to ANY criticism of Darwinism as religiously based and invalid, no matter what science may be behind it. Afterall, we know today thanks to Einstein that not even Sir Isaac Newton was COMPLETELY right. That's how science progresses. But yet Darwin and his evolution are treated like sacred cows that must not be touched or changed in any way. I have my Christian religion, and you seem to have your Darwin religion. I believe in evolution, the Big Bang, and most other popular science issues, but it would be incredibly pretentious of me to simply degrade anyone who has differing beliefs.</p>
<p>There's no evidence to support creationism, most people who believe in it have been brainwashed by their parents/pastors.</p>
<p>I think you should consider changing your mind b/c when Judgement day comes. Buddy your goin to hell.</p>
<p>"I think you should consider changing your mind b/c when Judgement day comes. Buddy your goin to hell."</p>
<p>And evil unicorns will carry you there through a field of four leaf clovers and past the pot of gold...</p>
<p>Lol. Man you guys are going deplore this. You will see.</p>
<p>But keep your *<strong><em>ty *</em></strong>ed up comments about god to damn self!</p>
<p>Atheists! Are losers to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And evil unicorns will carry you there through a field of four leaf clovers and past the pot of gold...
[/quote]
Keep up the good work. Theists are so touchy.</p>
<p>Oh, **** YOU GOD.</p>
<p>buddy. thats a pretty pathetic statement there, way to judge an entire person based upon their religious choice. religion isnt everything in determining character. plenty of christians murder and plenty of athiests live good lives. to make a blanket statement like that is something that i doubt Jesus would have tolerated considering he preached tolerance a great deal.</p>
<p>Robert: Im talking about human migration all the way from Africa, where human evolution first took place. We can trace human migration from Africa to Australia, to the Eurasian plains, to Europe and to North America. Even human migration across the Beiring Strait took place 10-12,000 years ago...way older than the 6,000years that many who read the bible literally have said that humans have only been around for 6,000 years.</p>