So what? It doesnt change the fact that I never talk about the bible while talking about evolution. Its seems you all are more interested in what the bible says about it than I do, cause like I said, I dont bring it up. The bible isnt taught in schools, evolution is, and there for must hold its own water. Which it doesnt.
Your not sure what Harvard grads I speak of, cause your not interested in knowing. NTM they have been automacticaly black balled by the scientific community.That being said, if you dont know what scientist are against the theory, how can you know what substance they bring to the table?? Again, your not interested in knowing. Your not interested in any truth that doesnt fit what you feel should be truth


You havent heard of many of them then, cause there are many who had no bias at all, other than the search for truth. BTW, WOW, you basicaly just said anyone who doesnt color inside the lines of evolution should be fired??? Regardless of there back ground, intelligence, or what they have contributed to the scientific community? Theres a word for that, its called DOGMA. Turns out, your religious after all.
Maybe the "vast majority" of scientists would rather keep working in there field, and continue to be funded, rather than being black balled by there piers, and out of work. This "mammoth amount of evidence" just doesnt exist, and cant even be agreed apon within the the scientific community.
This is exactly what im talking about. This has never happened. Even the most dogmatic scientists say we are at least 10 years from creating life in the "pre mortal" goo. So either your lying, or have been seriously decieved.
This is exactly the type of dishonesty that makes people question the theory. Its litteraly hammering a square in the circle hole. That is NOT science. Agenda anyone??
Thats rediculous. Especialy if the person with the different opinnion is equaly qualified to make such a observation. NTM its obvious the person with the different opinnion is basing it on the same exact "substance" that the original opinnion/theory came from. Saying there is no room for opinnions out side pre concieved notions, even by scientist themselfs, is not only not science, its litteraly anti science.

Such as??? Are you seriously going to tell me the origin of life isnt even a debatable subject???

I like Stein, funny guy. But Im more interested in the hundreds of scientists he interviewed. Exposing the extreme evolution Dogma that exists.

"So what?"? You have the nerve to proclaim the scientific objective validity of intelligent design (or creationism) and the invalidity of evolution when your primary source of objective truth comes from a two thousand year old book and not observed data?

No, I'm not sure what "Harvard grads" you speak of because you didn't care to validate your claims. You appealed to authority, incidentally without citing any source of authority.

You clearly don't understand what I was saying, and continue to express your profound ignorance. If you call keeping the objectivity of scientific research a "dogma" then so be it. People shouldn't be fired merely on the basis that their theories challenge accepted theories, but rather if they break the universal scientific ethics of objectivity and the scientific method. If they do the latter, then they are obviously not doing their job as a scientist and I don't see any problem with their employer firing them. Unless of course their employer is a "creationist science" institute; in which case scientific objectivity is not a priority.

You clearly don't have any idea about the landscape of science. There clearly is a "mammoth amount of evidence" that supports the theory of evolution. So much that even many fundies like yourself who have confused a superficial knowledge about the universe and the processes of science as scholarly erudition, have recognized evolution is true, if only for non-human animals. The paleontological record of today has filled in the gaps and provided clear-cut evidence for the succession of evolutionary transitions. There is an ocean of 'transitory fossils' on record, enough to even make the last Pope recognize revolution as a great true scientific discovery, not necessarily in conflict with religion.

Perhaps you would be interested in this link: Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Clearly, had there been a scientific revolution in that evolution is found to be false (perhaps the equivalent of a revolution finding out Newton's laws of physics is false), biologists have tenure, and their job security would perhaps be even greater, as they would be starting practically from ground one, and there would be a lot of research to do to make up for lost time.

And this is exactly the dishonesty that gives people a totally ignorant view of the present state of scientific understanding. The only thing "origin of life" scientists are in disagreement on is the model; that is, exactly how life sprung from nonliving matter particularly on Earth, as different models have been replicated in the lab. Again you cite what 'scientists say' with out actually citing scientists. 10 years from now? Perhaps I should inform you that it was first conducted over 50 years ago. It is called the Miller-Urey experiment, and had you taken elementary biology in college, you probably would be familiar with it.

Again, you're showing a "rediculous" ignorance of science. It is not obvious, as you say, that someone with a different opinion is basing their theory on the same pool of evidence and objectivity merely on the basis that it is a differing hypothesis. Differing hypotheses aren't considered equal bidders for the truth unless the objective evidence somehow amounts equally to the evidence for the other theory. For example, a modern flat-Earth fundie would have to especially go out of his/her way for scientists to take him seriously, presenting evidence that would have to shed doubt on just about everything we have observed in astronomy and physics. Saying evolution is false is almost as much a tall order as saying the theory of gravity is false. Because not only is our entire modern scientific biological knowledge predicated on evolutionary understanding, but all of the records, evidence, and even observed data (yes, we have observed evolution) points to evolution.


Its debatable only insofar as it is debatable between scientific models, not just differing opinions.

Hundreds? Really?

I'm sure what ever minority he's able to present on his "documentary", we'd be able to find scientists hundred-fold who find ideas like "evolution is false" is complete rubbish and has absolutely no scientific basis. I'm sure there were some scientists with the convictions of their faith who found the theory of a spherical Earth to be false four-hundred years ago, but indeed they were a minority, and they were sacrificing scientific objectivity for their faith.

I didnt have the nerve to proclaim any such thing. My focus has been strictly on the falsehood of evolution. The word creation didnt come into play till you brought it up just now. Show me one refrence of scripture I have used in this debate.
It isnt hard to find, if you were remotly interested, you would have found them by now.

There are pleanty of scientists who have problems with evolution that are not religious at all. I see you keep grabbing those straws. How you dont see a problem with firing anyone who questions parts of evolution is very telling.

Yet there are many scientists who refute every single so called "transitionary fossil" Who to believe?? Ive seen several of these so called "transitionary fossils"and they are beyond obsurd. Truth is there isnt a single transitionary fossil that can prove its self 100% true. BTW your talking about a Pope who would do whatever he can to get people to come back to his church. The Pope says we are in the end of days as well, put any stock into that??

You tell me they made life in a lab, then bring up the Miller experiment to prove it??????????? Then call me dishonest????????
True. The problem is we never get to hear what those different opinnions are, or how they are possible equal, cause they are fired at mear mention of such a notion.
Yea, we have observed evolution, micro evolution. No one disputes that. Aside from that, you have ZERO proof of the possibility of origin of life, or proof that one single animal ever evolved from another.

I guess you'd have to redefine "debatable" then. Cause there isnt one single "scientific model" that have ever created life in a lab. Not one.

If I heard the trailor correctly yes, hundreds.

Actualy most of the scientists are for evolution. The film is about exposing them. Plus scientists who have actualy been black balled by these folks.

You say evolution is false, and in the next breath recognize that you see the Bible as the only worthwhile arbiter of truth. It isn't hard to put two and two together.

It isn't my job to validate your claims.

Again you give nothing worth anything to the discussion at hand. If you start to provide substantiation for your tall orders then maybe I can take you seriously, and perhaps the scientific community could take your ideas seriously too.

Are you just not reading what I write, or are you just completely dismissing it without proper investigation?

You're going to have to see where I'm coming from, here. You continue to make extraordinary claims about the level of skepticism in the biological sciences with no substantiation whatsoever. About your judgments of transitional fossils, it is worth absolutely nothing to me. I don't know what fossils you've "seen", or what level of investigation you've invested in it, nor are you any sort of authority in scientific knowledge; so I can't just take you for your word. You seem to be only interested only in providing dubious and, at best, anecdotal evidence for extraordinary claims.

As for the Pope, I was merely demonstrating that, in principle, it is possible for someone to reconcile their faith with scientific fact.

I don't understand your insinuation. The Miller-Urey experiment was able to demonstrate that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic precursors in the environment of early Earth. Thereby demonstrating the ability, in principle, for the complexities of life to eventually evolve (after billions of years) from the original 'primordial soups' of otherwise nonliving materials. It is just a model, and debated at that (as a contended theory for how it actually happened), but was still nonetheless able to demonstrate that which you contend has not been demonstrated nor will be for "10 years".

You do not cease to provide us with a worthless argument. You have no idea about how such theories are evaluated, nor do I suspect you are able to provide factual substantiation for your dubious claim that they are denied merely on the basis that they present a differing hypothesis.

What do you define as micro-evolution? Farm animals like cows have been essentially changed in their physiognomies substantially due to human intervention. Likewise, just compare wild bananas with domesticated ones. Why is it an acceptable idea that species can evolve characteristics substantially (in rather short amounts of time) but more substantial changes like species diversification (over millions of years) is unacceptable? They both follow the same laws of physics. One is inseparable from the other.

Okay, perhaps we are just on different standards here. What do you define as "life"?

Anecdotal evidence referring to a trailer for a Ben Stein film as its source is completely worthless to me.

You have one thing right, most scientists are for evolution.

Deuteronomy 2:34: ‘We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining.’

Leviticus 31:17: The Hebrews were instructed to kill every man, woman, and child, except for the virgin girls. Those they were allowed to keep to rape whenever they pleased. In the Bible god used the phrase, ‘you may keep them as wives’ but they were taken against their will after their parents were slaughtered. If that’s what god intended marriage to be I want no part of it.

Additionally, these verses also illustrate great hypocrisy on the part of god and his children.

What happened to the Commandment “Thou shall not kill.” Does that only apply to those that share your religious faith?

I havent alot of time this morning, so Im just going to deal with this for now. BTW Happy New Year



"I don't understand your insinuation. The Miller-Urey experiment was able to demonstrate that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic precursors in the environment of early Earth. Thereby demonstrating the ability, in principle, for the complexities of life to eventually evolve (after billions of years) from the original 'primordial soups' of otherwise nonliving materials. It is just a model, and debated at that (as a contended theory for how it actually happened), but was still nonetheless able to demonstrate that which you contend has not been demonstrated nor will be for "10 years".

The Miller experiment proved nothing. He was able to make Left type amino acids (which are worthless as a building block of life) only right amino acids work as a building block. Though you never hear about that, only that he made amino acids. And lets say for one second that he did create a building block for life, what about the other TRILLION steps that there is ZERO explaination, or evidence for, that must have happened for life to start. At what point from there does the building material get a mind of its own, with no will what so ever, and begin to construct, all on its own mind you, the super computer that is DNA? I say they never created life in a lab, and im 100% correct in that statment. It never happened, nor will it ever happen. You cant take a 1/4 step, then say you climbed the mountain, then even worse, say you know whats on the other side.

Happy New Year to all!

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

The point was that the miller experiment was able to demonstrate that given the conditions of early Earth, necessary building blocks for life can form. The experiment produced both left-handed and right-handed optical isomers. It produced monomers such as amino acids. It also produced the building blocks for more complex nucleic acids (DNA/RNA); exactly how RNA arises is still a debated topic, but nonetheless, has been demonstrated to be possible.

The simple matter is, your "trillion steps" is hyperbole. It is known that left alone, organic chemicals polymerize to form longer and more complex chemicals. By this very simple chemical occurrence, it is perfectly conceivable that the more complex necessities of life such as RNA and DNA are formed after millions of years of a system of trial and error, finding matches. The necessary nucleotides and amino acids were found to form in a 1961 experiment where hydrogen cyanide and ammonia were left to mix in an aquas solution. The nucleotides join together to make polynucleotides (and an abundant clay in early Earth has been found to be a very good catalyst for this process) including RNA which can make copies of itself. With replication, so comes evolution. RNA replications that are no good obviously break apart, and the ones left over are better adapted to their environment. RNA grows more complex after hundreds of millions of years to form DNA.

The point is, with the necessary conditions and the simple laws of physics, the building blocks will eventually climb the mountain to more complex life forms. You're attempting to tackle this issue with the idea that we have to describe how complex life forms are 'suddenly formed' from simple non-living materials, undoubtedly causing hyperbole like 'scientists think humans come from rocks'. In short, you're trying to get to the top of the mountain instantly. Instead, science makes algorithmic compressions of seemingly complex sets of data (or finds 'laws' that can unify and explain phenomena). Consequently, we can explain the formation of complex lifeforms by these simple laws (or, in our analogy, climb the mountain rather than attempt to 'jump to the top').

It should be stated that evolution is a school completely separated from the origin of life sciences. Evolution is concerned in the biological sciences, and the origin of life is a concern for chemistry. It should also be stated that, as you are quick to point out, the origin of life science is in its infancy. However, that is not to say that there doesn't exist scientific hypothesis for the natural formation of life on Earth that conforms to accepted theories and the observable data, because there does. Most scientists agree that life originated on life following the simple rule that simple organic compounds polymerize; what is debated is only what specific model really happened on early Earth. It should also be stated that these scientific explanations for the formation of Earth, even though granted are in their infancy, have a lot more evidence and validity then the religious claim that life just 'popped' here from the hand of a deity. Because, even if we're able to find that the statistical spontaneous occurrence of DNA and RNA may be one in a billion, that still would leave a billion planets in the universe with life; and Earth is would only be one.

A Cornell Teacher wrote this in a conversation I had recently with a few "in the know" people.



I've logged in about 8 years experience as a "Process Engineer" and applying statistical process control.

The steps involved in a process to manufacture anything requires dozens and dozens of steps. Each step has to be documented before a single step in the process can be analyzed via statistics. The key in the whole thing is being able to identify variation and focus on reducing the spread of variation...but I don't want to digress.

When looking at a process....you have to look at the entire mechanism from start to finish. As a process engineer, you use the 80/20 rule in which you attack the top 20% issues that are responsible for 80% of the problems.

Now...relating that to evolution, everyone (who is a staunch support of Darwinism) wants to focus on the very last step of a trillion step process and make grandiose conclusions based on studying one step.

In the hypothesis of "abiogenesis".....it is the first step...a step that supposedly took a billion years to take place in which "prokaryotes" were "born". Where and what is the mechanism for this to have taken place? Virtually ALL scientific research has refuted this possibility...and it isn't from a lack of trying. Regardless, this is ignored by evolutionists, yet it is an incredibly important process step in the idea of macro evolution.

For the next billion years (after the hypothetical "emergence" of prokaryotes), photosynthesis is theorized to have taken place which bathed the prokaryotes in nutrients for sustaining their lives. Where is the "scientific" proof that prokaryotes actually existed and where is the proof that photosynthesis could make these simple organisms thrive for a billion years? It is all based on speculation....yet it is an incredibly important step in the "process of evolution".

Now....two billion years of earth in which prokaryotes emerged from nothing and were "nurtured by photosynthesis" to not only survive, but to become an increasingly complex organism called "eukaryotes", whereby the nucleus of the cell gained a membrane. The hypothetical existence of eukaryotes then hypothetically thrived for the next billion years....again by the wonders of photosynthesis.

So here we are....3 billion years later....and the processes that took non-life to the simplest form of life, and then to the next level of complexity.....are NOT KNOWN and are NOT SCIENTIFIC with the exception of being hypothesized with scientific terminology.

For the next 600 thousand years, these hypothetical eukaryotes went from a single celled organism with a membrane encased nucleus to the morphizing into various forms of sea creatures. Again.....where and what is the mechanism used for this to occur? How is it proven in legitimate science? The steps in the hypothetical process for a "eukaryote" to develop a spinal system would require millions of steps.....each of which are unknown.....and hypothetically, we are told that the DNA programs became incredibly complex and continually improved....via mutated gene or whatever the latest gang mentality throws at us.

Now, 4 billion years later....scientists (analyzing lifeforms as they are today) understand that animals can be grouped into families and broken down into more sub-groups such as species and sub-species and suddenly "wham", they prove evolution!

That is nonsense.

Yes...we understand that lifeforms are able to change and modify when subjected to isolation and differing environs....BUT, that is one step in the hypothetical process of evolution and it leaves out billions of steps in the process that put the animal (creature) here in the first place. And instead of addressing any of the trillion steps in the process that got us here in the first place....evolutionists want us to believe that because lifeforms can modify slightly in order to survive an environment....that the preceding trillion steps are a given.

That's not science....that's religion.