“I like to be human because in my unfinishedness I know that I am conditioned. Yet conscious of such conditioning, I know that I can go beyond it, which is the essential difference between conditioned and determined existence…In other words, my presence in the world is not so much of someone who is merely adapting to something “external,” but of someone who is inserted as if belonging essentially to it. It’s the position of one who struggles to become the subject and maker of history and not simply a passive, disconnected object.” Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of Freedom



Well, you preclude the idea that the universe created itself. That seems simple. Plus, you need to read my article on what evolution is. You do not seem to understand.



I am God come from the 6th dimension. I created you in my ethereal state as I sat beneath the great walnut tree of existence. Worship me.

I'm of the opinion that it takes a pretty small mind to claim that we have the definitive answer behind creation. Evolution has basis in study. Creationism has basis in history (as a lot of myth-based history is derrived from fact, not to say creationism is myth), most notably ancient written history.

Who's to say that there isn't a being who, compared to us, is supreme? Absolutely no one. Becuase there's no one out there that can definitively proove otherwise. So it's ridiculous to claim that there is no possibility that creationism contains no fact. Just as it's ridiculous to claim that there is no fact in the theory of evolution. To a person of faith, creationism makes perfect sense. To a person of science and rationality, evolution makes perfect sense.

And then there are those of us that can see the patterns and likenesses between creationism and evolution. If (and I believe there is) a being out there who created it all, evolution seems like a damned good method of trial and perfection. In the end, it's about having an open mind and considering all angles. The only real absolute is that there aren't any absolutes.

What is the common ancestor and how did it happen...what was/is the mechanism? It's not random mutation or natural selection. where's the proof of common ancestory?

I say just as dogmatically that God created the apes and He created human kind...two completely different species and never the twane did meet...

Genetic has shown that life does develop but not the way Darwin thought it did...

 

 

 

Look into phylogenic trees, claudistic analysis. Basically, scientists look at the number of mutations between extant organisms to determine, using Occam's Razor, the best possible explanation for how the species diverged from one another.

Buy why not just know they were all seperately created? Why search when the answer is written already. An species can adapt, but can all come from one without divine intervention?

And if not, where did the first life come from?

Despite what the biological establishment believes, apes to man evolution is bunk. I remember being told that most scientists believe life began at the edge of the sea, later they switched it to the big bang....when it comes to Evolution theory...they just don't know...it's all just guessing.

The genome pattern is complete. There is no DNA for any "intermediate" species or "missing link". The biological gulf between the closest species is so great you need thousands of transitional life forms to evolve into the other. The fossil record reveals none of these, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

We can easily conclude that life over time never evolves, it always disintegrates. Why do Evolutionists insist that nature can randomly create brand new more complicated, better life?

We are not descended from apes or related to them in any way.

The most we can say is that we have dominion over them as we do over all the animal, plant and sea kingdom.

 

 

Yes, agreed...scientists study mutations all the time....and come up with explanations...but what do we know conclusively about evidence collected on natural mutations? It indicates species DEGENERATION with no record of of any ever improving themselves.

This is the gigantic rub for Evolution Theory...hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done in a determined effort to prove the possiblility of evolution by mutation, and what they have learned is NOT ONCE, has there ever been a recorded of a instance of truly beneficial mutation.

 

 

 

Examples of Beneficial Mutations.

Amazing what Google can do, Lula.

Or how about Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans.

 

Are you really this ignorant of science?  The Big Bang is a universe based theory it has nothing to do with evolution...try cosmology and astrophysics.  Life is thought to have orignated in the seas...but those theories are about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Yes, there is.  Homologous structure of cell componenets exist: proteins, ribosomes, and a respectable amount of genes as well...up to 98% chimpanzee-human likeness.

There are loads and loads of transitional fossils.  Google it.

First off, it's not "better."  Evolution never promotes one organism as better than another.  More complicated, certainly, but never better.  It's also quite readily apparent that organisms become more complicated.  Looking at the fossil record you see simplicity abounds, as you move up the strata you see more and more specialization and complexity.  It's rather easy to see.

I think the geneticists of the world would strongly disagree.  You can't argue with DNA comparisons.  If people can determine paternity on a talk show with 99% accuracy or admit DNA evidence IN A COURT OF LAW, you think somehow they screw up when comparing ape-human relationships?  It's a funny reality you live in.

~Zoo

 

Please explain why evolution makes perfect sense to a person of science and rationality?  I can understand your statement based on faith.

C'mon science has been given a cake walk....no one has been able to breed land mammals from sea creatures and vice versa. To believe that happened takes faith.

  

 

 

Millions of years, actually.  There have been several beneficial mutations...wings, feathers, scales, hair, color patterns, all kinds of cool stuff.

Also I want to make this very clear- MUTATION IS ONLY ONE OF MANY WAYS THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVE.  In fact, it might be the rarest...but it does happen.  Other methods of evolution often involve genetic expression frequency and isolation.

~Zoo

First paragraph goes into cloning and what do we know from all cloning thus far...

All cloned existing life forms have more health problems or shorter life spans than the original... 

and after that...we know that mutations cannot produce cross-species change..

A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit...

Becasue evolution (change from one species to a new and different one would require millions upon millions of direct changes), mutations would have to occur very frequently...when in reality mutations are rare...and their rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zoo,

Please explain this in detail...don't send me a yard long link...what creature didn't have wings but evolved wings through mutation?

 

 Where's the proof? Where's the transitional form of beneficial mutations?

 

I assume you mean bird related organisms...so I'll go with that. Dinosaurs in the dromaeosaur family (like the velociraptor) are thought to be the ones that kicked off the wing movement. They developed feathers as well. You can see evidence in their arm structure that leads to formation of wings.

Here's link to some colorful picture progression: WWW Link

Of course, take into account that those are significant jumps...it was actually a much more drawn out process from one stage to the next. Still, there's a clear timeline from arm to fully formed wing.

~Zoo