Despite everything that your high school biology teacher may have told you, Darwinism is so ridiculously flawed that those who hold to its precepts do so in total opposition to even their own presuppositions about the nature and life of the universe.

Darwinism has yet to explain how its basic presuppositions could possibily be true. First, something came from nothing? Life came from nonlife? How this could happen, you will not be told. It just happened, so please don't seek to be overly scientific by asking a lot of difficult questions...

.. Forget the fact that this leap of faith, known as Evolution, is so mathematically improbable that a pile of bricks in an earthquake has a better chance of coming together in the shape of a space shuttle than a living cell has in developing from a protoplasmic soup. The idea that life was a freak accident, the result of random combinations, destroys the theory of evolution, for the upward progress in the evolution of species requires well-engineered genetic changes -- not random chaos.

Furthermore, I don't believe in Darwinism at all. And there's definitely no proof whatsoever that evolution is true.

Give me your opinions.

Yes. There are some really good books on the concept of 'Intelligent Design' - some people, being the atheists or agnostics they are, won't jump to the idea of creationism as the absolute truth but still write pretty interesting arguments for how there must be something that made all these minute details come together in a way that the universe and life as we know it becomes possible. There's a particularly good one I remember reading called 'Nature's Destiny' but I forget who wrote it :o ..It was a woman, I think.

@ Darkbread

Atoms joined to molecyles, molecyles attracted others, evolved to more complex combinations, these combinations began to swallow other combinations, natural selection left only those who were able to resist this, and vôila: evolution to fully functional cells, micro-organisms, creatures, animals, whatever. ID is just a pile of phooey invented by some religious people who think they can question science by its using its own tools against it. Questions are good and all, but the malevolent intentions behind them aren't.

Evolution is a dead theory
cuz DNA can't change

i have no idea why they are still teaching it in school

I agree, it's flawed and false. I want to get into too much depth because that would only rally me up with no end... it's scientifically and mathmatically flawed. Personally, I think if you really want to teach something so flawed or controversal, then why not allow teachings on counter-arguments? Not necessarily religious arguments, but scientific.

evolution is a dead theory
cuz DNA can't change

i have no idea why they are still teaching it in school

takes years to get new information or ideas into revised editions of textbooks... (and alot of schools are using old textbooks) >_>

Ah evolution. It really doesnt matter if you beleive it or not. I personally dont. I mean i really dont like the idea that i evolved from a micro organism in the mud.

Totally agree with you, Darkbread. I mean, even without looking at it from a deeply scientific view, the concepts that evolution puts forth contradict logic and everything else that we know. Everything on earth is so detailed and near perfected that it would be impossible for it to come just out of no where. If one can't believe that a god created it, how much more sense does it make to believe that we all came about by chance?

Well the planet has had billions and billions of years for 'chance' to occur. If you argue the other side, things seem so perfect because the 'imperfectness' gets illiminated from the gene pool as they're not the 'fittest'

but then again, noone can actually 'prove' evolution. same thing in science or philosophy. you can't 'prove' that speed = distance/ time, because we made up the conditions and definitions. We make up the set of rules and we use it to help us, but it may not necessarily be true.

well the planet has had billions and billions of years for 'chance' to occur. If you argue the other side, things seem so perfect because the 'imperfectness' gets illiminated from the gene pool as they're not the 'fittest'

There are things that do not change, however. Animals and plants DO adapt and change along with the environment, to take care of "imperfections"-- that's a proven fact. But that's not really the same thing as what evolution claims. That's why evolution/darwinism seems so believable because it mixes truth in there.

But like you said, there are things that we believe, but have no proof. At the same time however, the rules and theories usually have something backing them up. Evolution has a lot of holes in it.

Hisoka has a good point. Adaptation isn't quite the same as evolution. And it's a passive process, not a conscious effort by animals or plants to survive in their environment any better. Given time taller trees, faster antelopes and prettier-looking birds will emerge but they're not genetically distinct from their predecessors - they aren't a new species. Survival of the fittest seems like a solid idea, the weaker and less able of the species won't be lucky enough to find a mate. But it takes a leap of logic to upscale this over time to evolution - completely new species arising from older ones.

There are no completely out-of-the-blue species, evolution is a long tiring process. It's not like the fish walking out of the water people picture, it's slight changes that prove the theory.

Take for instance the polar bear. It has white fur but black skin, allowing it to camoflage itself in the snow, but absorb warmth in the tundra. The polar bear didn't evolve out of the nowhere, it evolved from regular black and brown bears of North America. Or take the dolphin, archeologists have found several skulls over hundreds of years that show the movement of the blowhole from the snout to the top of the head. And there are thousands and thousands of other examples. I'd recommend picking up National Geographic from Nov. 2004: "Was Darwin Wrong?," it features an absolutely incredible analysis of evolution.

As for creationism versus evolution (or, more precisely, the theory that life sprung from chaos) there are several things that allowed for life to form on our planet. First, our planet is perfectly distanced from the Sun to keep us from either frying or freezing (the only other planet near us that shares this placement is Mars). Second, we developed an atmosphere and water from the makeup of the planet - molten rock and metals - reacting and forming gasses such as nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. As this gas condensed it formed water, this formed clouds and allowed for lightning to occur.

Experiments have shown that if you take a mixture of chemicals and water and expose it to electricity, you form amino acids. Amino acids are what make up DNA. Now I'm not saying this is definitive proof, I'm not saying that we've found some ancient pool where this stuff happened. I'm just saying as far as the source of our existence this is the most likely source, and it makes more sense than "an inconceivable beign decided to make us."

And as a side note, the only reason things such as evolution are termed theories is because the scientific process teaches people to keep an open enough mind to accept that one out of a million tests won't hold true. To prove the theory of gravity I may drop a box a few million times, but it may very well not fall down every time. The term "hypothesis" is more closely related to the non-scientific definition of "theory," and the scientific term "theory" is better related to the word "fact."

To begin please look at the definitions of the word Evolution:

In science there are six interlocking theories which are often referred to as fundamental to evolution:
#1 COSMIC: From the theorized Big Bang of (estimated) 14-20 billion years ago to the (evolution or) generation of hydrogen gas into existence.
#2 CHEMICAL: Gases (beyond hydrogen) and other higher elements evolving into existence. In other words, increasing molecular & chemical order and complexity over time happening by itself.
#3 STAR & PLANETS: Gravity, angular momentum, magnetism, radiation, and other "accidentally existing" forces coalesce (or evolve) the molecules (from above) that evolved into existence all by themselves into subsequent proto-stars, then later (over lots and lots of theorized time; billions of years) into stars and planetary bodies.
#4 ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life emerging from sterile non-life by believed automatic advanced chemical processes. This has also been called spontaneous generation or more recently abiogenesis. Life from non-life; again, all by itself; increasing complexity and at some point in time - generating successive replication all by itself. Scientists today are using tax dollars to employ advanced, state-of-the-art equipment under expensive, carefully controlled high-technology laboratory conditions but this still hasn't succeeded in any way yet ... trying so hard ... all to show that life could happen accidentally, without much intelligence. (That being the case indeed.)
#5 MACRO-EVOLUTION: Kinds of life diverging and occasionally increasing in complexity through random processes down through time. The theory is that single-celled creatures gave rise to (possibly) multi-cellular marine organisms. Later fish evolved into amphibians, and then into reptiles which (possibly diverged and) evolved into the birds and mammals. Over the theorized millions of years the divergent complexity of life in nature has (apparently) increased in order, numbers and magnitude. Many of today's textbooks show lots of artistic illustrations of such beliefs.
#6 MICRO-EVOLUTION: Structured changes within pre-existing kinds of life. Heredity & Variation. This one is scientific and is observable in nature.

First off it is important for you all to recognize the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution because micro evolution is for real. It is the passing down of traits from one generation to the next. For instance lets compare Asian and Americans first off notice Asians are shorter (most of the time) and their skin is darker in tone then the average white American and we tend to be taller than most Asians. Now this doesn't show that one of us is higher along the evolutionary chain than the other no is just shows that over time our bodies adapt to our surrounding and the physical environments around us but that isn't to say we somehow "evolved differently" and are now different "species" of humans. No we are all humans we just have adapted to the area around us, the culture, and the weather in ways that best suited for our survival.

"What is the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution?
Macro-evolution is the theory that one kind of life form can become another kind given enough time and chance. Micro-evolution however is the observed biological process showing descendants that are similar to (but clearly not clones of) their ancestors. (Isn't it astounding that the Creator built in such automatic adjustability within each kind!) A child usually inherits visible traits from both parents, etc. Micro-evolution is scientific. This is the way our Creator designed life to be, various speciation could occur within each preset "kind" of life form. Watch carefully--when evolutionists offer their proofs of believed macroevolution, it is ALWAYS instances of microevolution that they cite, hoping that you won't notice the difference. Mendel's laws of genetics show us why microevolution does not lead to macroevolution"
Paul Abramson


COULD LIFE "JUST HAPPEN"?
by Ron Lyttle

THE STORY
Millions of years ago, evolutionists will tell you, many chemicals were swirling around in lifeless seas (or ponds, or puddles) here on earth. Methane gas was in the atmosphere being bombarded with cosmic rays from outer space, and powerful lightning bolts arced through the skies, lighting up the desolate landscape. Given enough time, cosmic rays, and lightning bolts, a "primordial soup" gradually formed which contained amino acids. These in turn got hooked together to form simple proteins, the "building blocks" of life. At some point these proteins happened to get connected in just the right way, and a threshold was crossed: the proteins started reproducing themselves, and simple life was "born".
During uncounted eons, this simple life gradually became more and more complex as chance modifications of the original proteins combined with external conditions of moisture, temperature, food supply, etc., to eventually produce all the varied and complex life forms inhabiting first the oceans, then the land, and finally the air, that we see today. Homo sapiens is seen as the topmost branch in the evolutionary tree of life, but the tree is still growing, and who knows what the next branches will look like?
REALITY CHECK
While the above is an interesting story, and variations of it (with many imaginative details added) are taught in most schools and universities around the world as the scientific explanation for the origin and development of life, more and more people are asking, "Is that really how we came to be? Do those people who call themselves scientists really know what they are talking about?" After all, nobody was around millions of years ago to watch the stirring of the primordial soup, or to see the first fish crawl out onto land, or to see the first winged creature take to the air in powered flight. The story of evolution is a pretty one, but is it supported by the facts?
RNA & DNA
Every living thing, from the most simple virus to the most complex animal, contains in its cells very complex compounds called nucleic acid . There are two forms, called ribonucleic acid (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Viruses contain only one or the other, but cells contain both. While RNA controls protein production, DNA is the main component in chromosomes, which provide the blueprint or pattern of heredity. Every time a cell divides into two, the RNA in the cell body and the DNA in the nucleus must be exactly copied, with one copy going with each cell. DNA is an incredibly complex molecule, resembling a long ladder that has been twisted into a spiral. The sides of the ladder are made up of compounds called phosphates and sugars , while the "rungs" are composed of two of four possible bases in all the possible combinations. The exact make-up and order of "rungs" varies from one kind of living thing to another. Each DNA "ladder" has about 20,000 "rungs", and each chromosome contains many thousands of DNA molecules. RNA has a similar structure, but the sugar is different, and one of the four bases is also different.
Since it is the chromosomal DNA (and in some cases RNA) that provides the blueprint for each cell and individual, if any of the thousands of rungs gets damaged, or if different combinations get substituted in the copy, that cell will be defective. Contrary to popular belief, most changes in the DNA structure (mutations) at best weaken, and at worst kill the cell. Only a very few are neutral, and beneficial changes are virtually non-existent. To produce a healthy, fully-functional individual, each copy of DNA and RNA must be identical to the original, down to the last "rung".
THE POINT
That such complexity could arise from "primordial soup" by random-chance chemical reactions is statistically, bio-chemically, and thermodynamically impossible. 1) There are too many connections in a DNA molecule to ever occur by chance, no matter how long you allow. 2) When biochemists have managed to produce simple amino acids in simulated "soup", it was by carefully controlling the conditions; there was nothing "random" or "chance" about the process, and the leap from simple amino acids to a DNA molecule is astronomical . 3) The second law of thermodynamics says that order moves toward disorder, and complex moves toward simple (not the other way around), unless acted upon by a higher force . Lightning bolts (the supposed driving force behind the chemical reactions) are actually great randomizers. The notion that anything as complex as a DNA molecule could arise by accident is therefore a non-scientific absurdity!
YEAH, BUT...
For the sake of discussion, suppose that a strand of DNA did somehow come together, and suppose further that thousands united to form a functional chromosome, and many chromosomes all joined forces (and no lightning bolt blasted the whole collection apart). You still only have a blueprint, a list of instructions telling how to make a living organism. It takes a living cell to use that blueprint, but it takes that blueprint to make a living cell. (To this seeming paradox evolutionists can only mumble, "it must have happened somehow . Life exists, doesn't it?")
AN EXAMPLE
I work in a manufacturing plant. We buy raw iron and brass castings that our machine shop turns into finished parts that our assemblers put together to make pumps. The machinist gets a blueprint created by the Engineering Department that shows all the dimensions of the finished part, and special instructions like how smooth a surface has to be, what thread size for tapped holes, "start machining here," etc. You can lay that blueprint on a raw casting and watch it for a billion years and it won't make a finished part. But the machinist picks it up, puts the casting in his machine, and when he is done a part is ready for use. He needs the blueprint to tell him how to make the part, and the blueprint is worthless without the machine and operator. So it is with DNA and living cells. Each needs the other to function, and together they can make new cells.
IN CONCLUSION
Far from being a logical, scientific, provable explanation of the origin and development of life on earth, Evolution appears to be a belief system held to with as much religious faith as any other creed, with the added difficulty of being contrary to known facts. To believe in evolution, a "scientist" must throw out the scientific method, suspend his common sense, and twist or ignore the facts. That so many continue to do so, and belittle those who dare to challenge their belief, shows the strength of their faith. Far from being open-minded seekers of truth, evolutionists appear to be closed-minded, dogmatic "defenders of the faith". Did life "just happen"? What do you think?


"Human (hominid) evolution is a FACT! Admit it!

Humans alive today vary in cranial capacity from about 700 cc to 2200 cc, with no relation of brain size to intelligence. (The average is about 1300 to 1350 cc; i.e. cubic centimeters.) I used to live in Tokyo, Japan for 5 years. Their average "brain size" is much smaller than mine (as a tall Caucasian) but I can assure you that the Japanese are very smart people. If we look at computers, one could argue that circuits that are closer together are more efficient and faster, ... so a smaller brain size may not necessarily be a disadvantage, correct? When evolutionists line up old mute skulls from smaller to larger (and purposefully hide the found ancient skulls that are larger than today's average) they make false assumptions linking brain size to intelligence - neglecting reason! Plus their radioactive dating methods don't work in the first place (as stated above), so they have no idea how old each skull is in the first place.
Excuse me, but what happens to the bones of a person who doesn't get enough calcium in their diet? Or if they were lacking copper, for example, it would detrimentally affect brain development. If, in past times, many peoples only ate local foods ... (stay with me here) and the local soil in different places had a lack of selinium, or magnesium, or iron, or any number of other trace minerals ... then this would affect each person and animal in the respective area over generations, correct? When we come along now and look at the hominid fossils left behind let's consider all of the logical scientific possibilities (including potentially inbred defects), and not just use a selected dishonest evolutionary sampling of the literally thousands of found hominid remains (hiding or ignoring the vast majority of them!) in order to try to publicize and endow temporary evolutionary theory with credibility - in other words, they are proclaiming evolution at all costs in spite of the fossil evidence. There will be a high cost to us if we let them continue to deceive the public with false, doctored evidence. The fossil record (i.e. the creationist's best friend) shows that each kind has always varied within each kind, which is evidence of tremendously wise design.
What does evolution do? (Yes, I'm asking YOU a serious question!) It fills a need for our origins. It is not testable-repeatable. And when creationists show that evolution stands against scientific evidence the evolutionists get angry. Angry? Excuse me? I thought this was "science" ... the free exchange of ideas and evidence and all. We're threatening their religion. Who are we as humans? Why are we here? Where will we go? 3.5 billion base pairs for human DNA. Wow! I don't have enough faith to believe in random chance for our origins. This is different ... different than other kinds of science, isn't it? "
by Paul Abramson


So to put it simply it is literally improbable and impossible that macro-evolution exists. To believe so would be to toss all scientific laws out the window. To think that the universe just went BOOM and appeared is ridicules! When a person builds a house he or she writes up plans the "blueprints" and then hires a team of people to follow those blueprints and "create" the home. So when you look at a building you cant say that it just happened by chance. No it had a "creator" behind it. Without the people that made it the building would not be there. So to think that with out a creator the universe somehow brought its self into existence from absolutely nothing is stupidity. There is a creator, there has to be a creator, and there is scientific evidence that there is a creator. End of story.

I refuse to believe that i evolved from such a disgusting creature as an ape

and if we did evolve from apes, then why do apes still exist today? and why dont they evolve into humans?

Experiments have shown that if you take a mixture of chemicals and water and expose it to electricity, you form amino acids. Amino acids are what make up DNA. Now I'm not saying this is definitive proof, I'm not saying that we've found some ancient pool where this stuff happened. I'm just saying as far as the source of our existence this is the most likely source, and it makes more sense than "an inconceivable beign decided to make us."

...

The term "hypothesis" is more closely related to the non-scientific definition of "theory," and the scientific term "theory" is better related to the word "fact."

I'm probably opening up an entirely different topic of discussion with this, but in response to the first part of the quote, JoeBenjamin, I honestly don't see how either one can really be called "most likely" (taken at face value, anyway). For one thing, as you said, no one's found this ancient pool, and anyway, how would that explain where the pool itself came from? Where did this electricity come from in order to form the amino acids (if that's how you're saying the world came to be)? And if that's more believable then a being creating everything-- particularly humans --how could evolution explain the things about us that are not simply physical? Like emotions and thought and things of that nature? Things like that are not implanted in DNA. It would require some sort of great thinking to come up those kinds of concepts, because humans certainly couldn't come up with them on their own.

Oh, and I agreed with you about "fact" and "theory", that's why I quoted it. ^^;;

And to WhiteBlaze, I just wanted to thank you for pointing out the different types of evolution and the difference between micro and macro. That's what I was trying to get at before, but I forgot the official terms. x_X Anyway, yeah, you made some very good points. ^^