I Just Don’t Get It. There’s no HARD evidence that God is there. Yeah, I know … the Bible, but … in the Bible, God talked to people on a regular basis. It’s like every time they turned around God was telling somebody to build an ark or to go somewhere really far away or lead somebody into some kind of something.
When has God actually talked to somebody lately? Don’t you think one of these hard christians would hear from him every once and a while? Shouldn’t he be keeping in touch? Don’t you think that somebody who really believed would hear something and go “Okay. Everybody listen up … God said ….” but no. I haven’t heard of ANYBODY like that and if we had the kind of christian community everybody thinks, people would listen and follow that nut-job who heard God talk. Right? And, I’ve heard “You just need faith.” so many times that it’s going to start coming out of my ass soon! So, don’t give me that. I want the HARD evidence. Like, FACTS, not beliefs. I want you to PROVE it to me!!!
This all goes back to the “I’ll believe it when I see it” thing. I’m SO over being scared into believeing that if I don’t trust the people who get up every Sunday morning and get all dressed up to go sit on hard benches, then my ass is going to hell! I’m not fixing to buy into the “You’re evil! You’re going to burn for eternity! God’s going to frown upon you if you don’t ask him into your heart!” anymore! i want PROOF!
...Astonish Me!
-
There has to be a godHey, I wrote this topic, but because it got filled with a whole bunch of stuff I didn't like, i'm going to refine everything. into one bit topic.23% Voted for by Doom Pickels, mudgod, Applehead.
In order to find proof of God, you must search for it. You cannot have anyone else find it for you because you can jsut be willingly ignorant of the facts. But there is no way for our exsistance to be true if there was no creator. Here are some reason why I believe in an intellegent creator instead of evolution.
Sorry, evolution is just impossible from all angles, and this is only the tip of the iceberg
Here are my two cents.
There are 2 types of amino acids.
Right and Left handed amino acids.... They are made of exsactly the same atoms, but are mirror images of eachother. just like your right and left hand (im not being really technical right now) Thease amino acids can turn from left to right and vice versa. This occurs when an animal dies because the Dna starts breaking up allowing amino acids to change. This is when amino acids racemize. Scientists conclude that 20 million years is the MAX amount of time it takes for all the amino acids to have a ratio of 50:50 even it it started out as 100:0 (this is because of the law of chance)
All DNA in the world that produces living organisms is made of left-handed amino acids. This is very simple, yes?
Now as we go back "billions of years" we come to the promordial soup, witch is rich in.. not amino acids... TAR. Yup 85% tar. This is what happens when the chemichals needed for life are struck by lightnening and the process continues. But there is a trace of amino acids to allow life to begin! Now lets start the fun part!
Amino acids come in two forms, right and left handed (as explained earlier) In order to come up with a working protein, they must all be left handed. if not the protein curls up and becomes completely uselss untill it breaks down.
When lightning or any other form of energy causes amino acids to combine, there is a 50:50 chance that an amino acid will be right or left handed. In order for 2 amino acids to be left handed, the odds would be 1:4 (1 to 2^2) In order for it to be 3 it would be 1:8 (1 to 2^3) in order for it to be 9 it would be 1:512 (1 to 2^9). Now if we were to have the scientists conclusion of the simplest form of life possible to survive, there would be 100,000 base pairs (note the simplest one alive today has around 500,000, but I will be nice) So in order for functional DNA to begin (not life), we start of with the odds of 1:2^100,000th power.
Now Good thing we have high tech calculators. The total odds would be 1:10x30102 (10 with 30102 zeros after it) (I rounded from 9.99 to 10, just to make it easier)
Now we go to the scientists with their most conservative numbers possible. And here we have it. If the odds of somthing occuring in our universe (this includes how big it is) were smaller than 1 to 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (50 zeros) It couldn't happen at all in our universe.(the odds for the DNA has more than 600 times more 0s)
But let's say that even against all odds, we come up with a good DNA sample with 100,000 base pairs. Now what? In order for DNA to function properly, It must be inside a cell to keep it from breaking down and to carry out the DNa's instructions. In order for a cell to form, The DNA must be able to make a Cell. We are in a bit of a chicken and egg argument. One we start out with a chicken who can't lay eggs. So in order for it to work properly, the 1000s of parts have to be in exsistance when the DNA forms, right next to were the DNA is forming. But the parts cannot exsist without the DNA to form them using the parts that the DNA must make. All of a sudden, the first life forms come to a complete stand-still. The odds of lighting turning the correct molecules into over 1000 different parts and the DNA right next to eachother, with a cell membrane to keep it all together, and to have the correct part for the DNA, are absolutely astronomical. In fact, we would have to start using the expression
1 to 10^#^#. The number of zeros would need to be put in scientific notation just so it would fit in a screen. But let's say that even against all odds it works. It just simply works out. Just once. We can deal with it. It's just a number right? Now we have an even bigger problem... It's too cold for thease reactions to occur billions of years ago. Here is why.
As a star ages, it gets hotter and brighter. (unlike what you are taught in textbooks) This is because when nuclear fusion takes place, 4 hydrogen nuclei turn into 1 helium nucleus, and energy. When this occurs, it gets hotter, and the nucleuses get closer together (1 helium nucleus takes less room than 4 helium, even if it is bigger, it takes less space) When atoms are closer together, and hotter, nuclean fusion can happen easier and faster. It is only common sense.
But there is a problem here. If stars get hotter as they age, then a star would be cooloer if we go back in time. If we were to go back in time billions of years, using the most conservative numbers, the planet of earth would be waaaaaaay to cold for such chemical reactions to occur.(The point were many gases would freeze) But there is still another problem with the first cell idea.
Our earth is in the most perfect place in the galaxie. Just look at it. First, our star gives off the perfect amount of energy according to how far we are from it. If it was a red supergiant, then it would engulf the inner planets.If it was a very bright star, it would emit way too much high frequency light waves. Too small, and we would experience terrible tidals waves constantly because we would have to be very close to it in order for it to support life. Most stars are in binary, trinary, or polynary orbits, this would cause extreme tempurature differences on the planets that orbit the stars. Many other stars with preferable characteristics as our own star usually have terrible coronal ejections 10-100million times worse than our own star. worse than our own. We really do have a special star. And there would be at most 100 of them in our galaxie. But at most 2 would probally have a planet that was the correct distance from it. But here is more.
In our solar system, the gas planets are far away from the sun, when rocky planets are close. This is completely contradicted in other solarsystems.
999:1 times the gas planets are close to the sun. Why didn't that happen in our solar system? Why did it happen to theirs? It just points out that something had to keep it from being a disaster. If gas planets were to rotate inwards, it would suck up the "life bearing" planet. But if it were to start close, then why didn't it happen in our solar system? Why does it just come up so that everything works for it? But here's more.
When stars rotate in a galaxie, they can either be neer the middle of a galaxie, or neer the edge. Because our sun's orbit is circular, it doesn't get very close neer the center were supernova are much more common. It also orbits paralell to the galactic plane. Crossing over this plane would be very disruptive. Plus the sun orbits at an ideal distance from the galactal center. only here does the rotation of stars match that of the spiral's arms. Crossing over an arm would expose it to tons of supernova.
The odds of our star to have the right distance from us, size, heat, stability, distance from the galactal center, with it's paralell orbit to have rock planets closer to it than gas planets, witch a plant at the right angle to allow the right distribution of seasons, at the right rotation speed to allow equal distribution of the sun's light, with a powerful enough magnetic feild to protect it, the right magnetic feild that wouldn't suck iron out of your blood, to be altering the laws of physics to start out at the right tempurature and not get hotter like what it should be, to create the correct corresponding parts for a cell with the correct DNA (all left-handed amino acids) to just randomly come into exsistance, are 1 to 10^*sideways 8*
But let's break the odd bearier for just once moment of time! just once! let's see were this first cell takes us. The cell has no food souce exept the tar.... It can only get it's energy from the sun. Ok, we just will skip all the imposibilities and go on to were it comes to work. the cell divides, copying it's genetic information. This continues. In only a few days, the bacteria would have consumed the entire earth... Kinda a drag, breaking all thease odds, and you just completely eat up the perfectly formed earth. But that isn't completely logical, the bacteria would die out turning into food for the stronger bacteria.
But lets look at it now. We have bacteria. A cosmic ray hits it causing a base pair to be destroyed, the DNA repairing agency inside the cell accidentally makes a mistake. Creating a mutation. WOO HOO! out first form of evolution... or is it? Most mutations are harmful and usually destroy data. So that specific bacteria cell just doesn't work as well as it should, but because it was only one base pair, it can still multiply.
Over the years, more genetic mutations will occur, but 99.95% of them will be harmful to the bacteria. Even if a good mutation were to occur, it would drown in the lake of bad mutations.
We don't even see evolution today. We simply see either a harmful mutation helping an organism (like sickle-celled disease, and and overworking pump in bacteria). A removal of Genetics that help the organism. Like when a baby can form lacate (I think I spelled right) in order to digest milk, but a switch in the DNA turns it off when they get older. A mutation can cause the switch to not work properly and we continue to form lacate to digest milk).When variations, like a group of tan people going to africa, were only the darker skinned people survive. and cause genetics for light skin to slowly die away as darker traits are being put in. Or were people who could digest food ok, moved up to mountain areas, were cheese was a vital form of food, people who couldn't digest cheese that well (Lactose intolerant) would die, and people who could digest it very well would be healthier.
But thats about it, variations in exsisting traits, or harmful mutations allowing some things to not happen (like chopping off your legs so you don't get athlete's foot)
But the problem is all organs would have to completely arise. Fully and wholly. If a bump were to "try" to evolve into a leg, it would be considered useless because it would get in the way of say a creeping organism. The bump would be dragging on the floor, making it infectable easier. Thus It would die. Unless the bump were to have muscles and bones in order to help the creeping animal, it would simply die, and the odds of a bump having the right muscles and bones in it are extrmely unscientific as well.
Not only that, we see absolutely no form of macroevolution. macroevolution is were you have arising complexity, but that is not true. out of the trillions of fish we see, none of them have a prmitive form of lung. Out of all the plants, none of them have growing brains, blood, or any characteristic much like an animal (even carnivorous plants digest food completely different from animals)
And if evolution was true, then we wouldn't even need a classification system. Because every single animal would be evolving. Every single animal would be a transitional form. But that is not seen. A bat is always a bat. a kangaroo is always a kangaroo, a human is always a human. There isn't anything in between them. Sure we have say like a chimp between dogs and us. But that is irrelevant. because a dog is a dog, a chimp is a chimp, and a human is a human. but if evolution were true, almost all the animals would be different filling up every single gap between them. But we don't see that. Even evolutionist say that the present is the key to the past. And if you look at the present, I see God's wonderful creation being able to adapt using the genetic diveristy that God was smart enough to give them in the beginning, ruled by man, the image of God. Nothing becoming more complex, just decaying with time as genetic mutations start to harm all the animals and humans.
Our culture is fed the lie that we are simply evolved monkeys. That is why creationist try their best to help save the people in this decaying word. Some think we are jesus freaks trying to "save" them. But it is completely your choice to have faith in the text books who lie to you, or faith in a bible written by supernatually inspired honest men.
Here are some weak arguments some people has used against me... (Words within squiggleys are written by me, words within ^^^'s are by the people against me.
^^^for starters, i am going to state that i dont know everything about science and will only state what i do know (i am a first year bio sci student and have taken courses in astronomy and psychology)
right and left handed proteins... never heard of this term and i have been doing cellular biology for three years. my guess one of your teachers used it as an example. in the primortal soup, we have molecules that had the potential to form proteins, sugars and nucleic acids. back then, the earth was much more hostile place. there was no Ozone layer to protect creatures like us, and the earth was much more violent and toxic. volcanoes and radiation provided much of the energy that it took to push chemicals into forming organic molecules. you can even do this experiment.^^
~~~~~~~~~~The reason you don't hear about them is because they are ommited in textbooks. Just ask your teacher about them. If he does know congratz for him, and challenge him with my topic. But he most likely won't kn ow because it isn't taught. And that is why evolution has such a bug hit. They just don't tell how the first chemichals form into the ight parts of a cell. And they aren't right and left handed proteines, but right and elft handed amino acids. A protene can be made with both, or only right handed ones, but it would not be suitable for life, and then curl up.
The Miller-Urey test formed mainly tar, with only trace amounts of amino acids. So chemichal evolution (also one of the 6 evolutions) is scientifically impossible to produce life. If you were to do the epiriment yourself, There wouldn't be any life, or even proteines, but just the building blods for only some proteins, witch are the building block for life
"The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below.
Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2).21 The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’ The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions."
Souce "Answers in Genesis"~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^^yes, it is nearly impossible for this to happen, ya its got a lot of zeros on the end but it also means that it has a chance of happening. and it did. it took millions of years, but it still happened.^^
~~~~~~~~~~~~ No it didn't, There is no chance for something, Scientists conclude that 1 to 10^50 is "impossible", or is infitismalley small enough to conclude it is impossible. And the odds of chemichal evolution is 10^600 times smaller than "what is impossible".~~~~
^^on to stars. when stars form, (like our sun) they form onto what astronomers call the Main Sequence (or MS). The MS houses most of the stars in our universe, with a few exceptions of dwarfs and giants (which were actually formed from MS stars). now, when a star forms, it finds a balance through gravity and pressure. this means that the gravity that is pulling everything into the centre of the star is equal to the pressure of those elements pushing back.^^
~~~~~~~~~~ In order for their to be a balance of gravity and pressure, The atoms have to be dense enough. But all gas that we see in space is around 400 times thinner than the gas in our own atmosphere. Not even the gas in our atmosphere can pull itself together, It would much rather separate into the vacuum of space. This is because even if an atmosphere was lightyears across, Gravity would literally have no effect. Because there is no pressure even in the middle of the gas. This is because the gas on the outside of the ball of gas moves outward, Meaning there is no chance for the gas inside it to move inward. Because if the gas inside were to move inward, it would cause a vacuum between the gas moving outward, and the gas moving inward. So the gas moving inward would just separate along with all the other gas. In order for stars to form, It must be a liquid, or solid. Liquids can't form in a vacuum, so it has to be solid. Solids aren't able to form through the condensation of light. So no matter could ever pull itself together into stars after the big bang.~~~~~~
^^the temperature to fuse H into He is around 150,000,000 K. and as chemists know, temperature is directly proportional to pressure. thus, the temperature cannot change until something happens to change the pressure in our sun. this something is the core of the sun possessing no more H to fuse into He. in a star the size of our sun, it takes 10 billion years (its only 4.8 BY old so dont worry). and yes, when the star runs out of H it does expand and will eventually consume the earth (mars may not be) and then there is a large, unnessary amount of information about red giants that i am not going to cover.^^
~~~~~~~~~~Tempurature is not directly perportioned to pressure. It is highly related, but not directly. Because I can go 9ft underwater, but I'm not twice as hot as when I was above the water. (9 ft water=earth's entire atmosphere) even though there is twice as much pressure. The same with stars. Tempurature isn't direct correlate with pressure. But highly correlated. as tempurature goes up, pressure goes up. SO you have things a little backwards. If the tempurature goes up, the pressure in the star goes up, simply because the atoms move faster. And density also plays a huge role in nuclear fusion. The denser the plasma is, the easier it is for nuclei to fuse together. That is because the Nuclei are closer already. And the increased pressure also does a great deal.~~~~~~~~~~~~
^^for starters, i did not say related i said proportional. there is a difference. read up on charles law. actually read up on everything above. obviously you believe that nothing can happen by chance, and that some god has their hand in the soup but whatever.^^
~~Lol, you believe anything can happen within 20 billion years. You simply just have faith that evolution is correct. And that means you have a religeon or evolution. Because you put your faith in something that can't happen unless something supernature were to happen. You're just being "Willingly Ignorant" (2nd Peter 3) You're not even qustioning evolution, unless you are, but you are not showing it.~~
^^im a scientist. i question it all the time. but there is also evidence for it and i have yet to prove it wrong. sure, not all of it is complete, but i am one of those people who work and think on it alot. not sure what 2nd peter3 means. i'm guessing your quoting a book.^^
~~There is no evidence for Macroevolution. And I will refute all your proof~~
~~New topic~~
^^sigh. when will at least one person on this site stat evolution as it is, and not as people think it is???
for starters, evolution does not mean that things get more complicated. it can go either way.^^
~~~~~~Tell us what kind of evolution you're talking about and it's definition. Chemical, stellar, micro, macro? there are two more, but I forgot em =P, macroevolution says things dont get more complicated, just more complex. That is required for us to have all the variety of animals we have today, and Microevolution explain variations of the genes within a "kind"~~~
^^well i will state some obvious evolutionary points in history but whether you believe me is up to you
mass dinosaur exctiction. what do we know about them?? that they were cold blooded animals right? right. when the asteroid struck the earth, and blocking out the sun, there were two kinds of animals on the planet. mammals (us) and reptillians. the reptilians needed warm weather to survive. whereas mammals did not. as the months pass by with very little warmth, the dinosaurs do not have the means of getting food to their cells, and they eventually die. mammals dont need to have sun to have their bodies workin properly. and were able to survive with the little warmth that got through to the earth.~~
~~~~ That is if you believed Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But how come we have unfosilized dinosaur bones in Australia (research reported on AiG website) (When unfosilized bones would disintegrate), How can we find soft tissue inside muscles (the animal) witch are supposedly millions of years old and still look exsactly like the muscles we have today, Can can we find Blood and soft tissue in T-rex bones millions of years old
(Direct quote from Dr. Menton)
"A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana."
How can we find amino acids in fossiles millions of years old? Amino acids should've completely broken down by now. The only explanation is that they wewre all buried and fosilized 4300 years ago. (Animals have to fossilize fast, or they will decay)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^^Evolution.
another, much more recient evolution. anti-bacterial resistant bacteria. when we use anti-bacterials, we do not kill off every single bacteria. some are resistant to this anti-bacterial. these bacteria are able to reproduce offspring with this same resistance. there is no other type of non-resistant bacteria left, so this new, stronger bacterium have evolved to suit this new world. evolution.^^
~~~~~~~~~~Define stronger. The mutations that cause bacteria to be resistant is a different type of mutation, and is not the evolution needed to make species truely stronger.
"Penicillin, a chemical extracted from a fungus, acts on the ‘body builders!’ in many bacterial cells. After exposure to penicillin, many bacteria cannot produce murein, a substance used in making and repairing the cell wall of a bacteria. This cell wall is the bacteria’s defense. Without a cell wall, water soaks into the bacteria too fast, and it bursts. Without a cell wall, the bacteria’s normal means of reproduction-splitting in two-cannot be achieved. For all intents and purposes, a bacteria exposed to penicillin is rendered dead or harmless, or at least they used to be.
Experiments in suitable growing conditions have shown that occasionally bacteria lose their cell wall and produce a mutant or degenerate L form. These L forms are less tolerant to change than the normal form and can only function under certain conditions. Compared to the normal bacteria, they are misshapen and have poor tolerance against attack. Except, that is, against attack from penicillin! Having no cell walls, it is of little concern to them if penicillin is present or not. These forms reproduce more slowly than normal bacteria and are therefore usually less of a threat to health than other types of bacteria, but the point to be made is that they cannot normally be treated with penicillin. Some naturally observed bacteria are also without cell walls and a few of them are very dangerous to man. The pneumonia-like, wall-less bacteria contains some real pasties. Without a cell wall penicillin is of little significance to most of these organisms. It would seem likely that these pneumonia-like organisms are descendants of other bacteria that have lost the ability to make a cell wall. They are degenerate forms and their disease producing relationship to man is a degenerate relationship. Their penicillin resistance is not something they gained in the genetic sense, but something they have (in some cases) because of what they have lost."
just because a bacterium is stronger int he circumstance, doesn't mean it's stronger. It just means the chemichal has lost the ability to be effected by the chemichal. Not gain an ability to be resistant of it. If it were truely evolution, Then a gene would cause bacteria to be able to control the influx of water it is receiving. Or if it has the ability to continue multipling at the same speed even though there is penicillin atatcking it.
This is the same with all forms of "evolution". there is a loss in genetics, or something that is used to help the cell work good is damaged, but as a result, it is immune to something that would hurt it.~~~
~~New topic~~
y^^es right now we dont see evolution happening. but just think about it. there are a few humans out there that are resistant to HIV, people who do not get sick from polutants as much as we used to. we are evolving. it is a slow process, not something that happens over night to an individual.^^
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People are resistant to HIV because of a harmfuil mutation that prevents them from being effected from it. What happens is the cells of the person who has the HIV virus in them have "keyholes" in witch the HIV virus must have the key for. There are mutations that cause the "keyholes" to become deformed. It keeps the HIV virus from being able to enter the cell, but It also harms the cell because other items that the cell might need aren't able to get in as well. It's like saying if you have a mutation that makes all your bones merge, and cause you to have no joints, You can say it's evolution because you can no longer get arthritis.
Some people who don't get sick from pollutants either lost information that makes them affected by the pollutants, or they mutated a resistance against it.
My guess is number 1, simply because most mutations are harmful or remove DNA. The people resistant to the pollutants are probally weaker, or they can't take in some good chemicals as easily. And it ends up hurting the person.
But here is one thing among evolutionists. Some say evolution is a slow process. Some people say there are short "bursts" of evolution. Because evolution cannot happen fast one group says and evolution can't happen slow the other group says. But creationists believe in both. it can't happen fast or slow because it can't happen at all.
Not only that, but a God wouldn't use a process as inefficient as evolution to create mankind. If evolution was true, then it would contradict the Bible when it says "from one man came sin and death", but evolution says "from death and struggles came man", completely contradictory. And then you would just have to admit that evolution took place within 6 days.
And yes, impossible. It's impossible for water to flow uphill in liquid form when it has a path that leads downhill. That is what is happening. DNA would much rather break down than form into cells.
could you do an exspiriment that would cause 100% of flowing water to decide to flow uphill without your intervention? You're saying that amino acids can do so....
Besides, I'm not going to reply to you anymore because you're hardheaded and a sucker for impossible ideas. You bet your entire exsistance and the exsistance of the universe one stuff that is impossible simply because you don't want to have to deal with a higher authority.
I have refuted all your "proof" of evolution, and you have yet to come up with one I cannot answer. And I'm only 14.
2nd peter 3, is a bible verse that says that the world will be willingly ignorant to the owrds of the wise. And that is what you are doing. And you don't "question" evolution. You are willing to believe it till the death. And you will never change, even when all the facts are shown before you.
~New topic~
^^you obviously do not understand evolution.^^
~~I understand some of the evolutions very well. You just don't know the difference between evolution, and devolution. Because mutating into somthing that is weaker, but is unaffected by toxins because it is unable to produce the items that would cause it to be harmful, but in turn causes itself to be weaker is devolution, not evolution.
Stellar, chemical, and macroevolution is impossible. Microevolution is (specification), but too many times is proof for microevolution used as evidence for the other 3... There are 2 more evolutions, but I forgot their names.~~
~~God bless
Robert
(i'm done =P) -
Want Proof? You have to look for it!15% Voted for by paidagrand, Doom Pickels.
If you want proof of God's existence you have to search for yourself. It is not handed to you on a silver platter saying here it is. There are a multitude of resources for you to begin. There is a book out there that I reccomend. It may point you in the right direction. The author is a friend of mine. He wrote a book called "My Words are Spirit and life". His name is James L. Regan. He has a very annalytical mind and has stumbled on a remarkable discovery. ISBN: 1420893262 If you really are sincere and if you truly want to review fairly, the evidence in nature, for a Supreme Being, then I reccomend you get a copy of this book. What do you have to lose? God does not push Himslef on anyone, its zealots in their religiosity that shove Him down your throat. If you are set in wanting hard evidence for the existence of God, why don't you work backwards. You come up with some hard evidence to disprove God? How about it hugh?
-
Why wont you people just get on with it and present the lady/guy with a logical argument shesssssssshhh15% Voted for by justalilfinker, Doom Pickels.
Ok for all the people there. Well up there. ok here it is a logical argument. First of all its first came up with by a guy called Anselm. thus us the argument.
God is the greatest possible being (nothing greater can be conceived)
If God exists in the mind alone (only as an idea), then a greater being could be imagined to exist in both the mind and in reality.
This being would be greater than God.
Thus God cannot exist only as an idea in the mind.
There do you get it?
-
WhyVoted for by Insertnamehere.
What does it matter? Go watch TV or play a video game, or read a book or play outside, who cares whether or not god exists? It's not something we can change.
If god DOES exist it's evident that he doesn't want us to know so easily. If he doesn't exist then what else is there in life to do except what I just said.
Stop worring so much about trivial things. Knowing whether god exists or not won't change what happens in the afterlife. Some might say we should worship him, but we can't know that he wants to be worshipped. We can't know that god isn't actually the devil, and that if we worship him the actual god won't save us. So why bother? God can't expect any more from us considering the lack of evidence he's given us. I agree that the bible is unreliable, anyone could've written that. The only thing may be a fluke. That doesn't necessarily say anything about god, it just means that it's not necessarily true that god is what the christians believe he is.
Done.
-
Proof? More like choice.Voted for by quality revenge.
There is no proof that God exists, because belief in God is a matter of choice. The entire concept of faith requires you to relinquish responsibility and choice to God. You have to trust that He is there, and you can't rely on proof.
As an Atheist, I've come to respect all religions, because it's a choice. If I want respected as an Atheist, then I can't try to prove that God doesn't exist, and I think the same goes for Christians.
-
a bone to pick with god : (Voted for by Toula.
I agree, i used to believe in god and now i am so against it, it's not funny, if god created this world for us animals to live in, and it's meant to be peaceful and no wrong, then why is there greif, loss, hurt, injustice and even death. Some people like me believe the devil created the world when god was not looking and i believe it - why is there pain, war, sickness, why would god create that for us as a world, how cruel is he ? What kind of a sick force would do that if he is meant to be about peace and crap !!!!
religion is fear, and most people only believe in god so that they can be with him once they die, tell me one thing god does for you that you can't do for yourself ? answer me that ?
He does nothing for us !!!! Nothing at all
My existence is this world is my punishment from god, don't give me life, then be served injustice.
toula andreadis
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
mudgod
March 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
March 3, 2007
dont worry i wont say christianity is offensive but i will say that your lack of knowledge of science is pretty evident here
for starters, i am going to state that i dont know everything about science and will only state what i do know (i am a first year bio sci student and have taken courses in astronomy and psychology)right and left handed proteins... never heard of this term and i have been doing cellular biology for three years. my guess one of your teachers used it as an example. in the primortal soup, we have molecules that had the potential to form proteins, sugars and nucleic acids. back then, the earth was much more hostile place. there was no Ozone layer to protect creatures like us, and the earth was much more violent and toxic. volcanoes and radiation provided much of the energy that it took to push chemicals into forming organic molecules. you can even do this experiment.
yes, it is nearly impossible for this to happen, ya its got a lot of zeros on the end but it also means that it has a chance of happening. and it did. it took millions of years, but it still happened.
on to stars. when stars form, (like our sun) they form onto what astronomers call the Main Sequence (or MS). The MS houses most of the stars in our universe, with a few exceptions of dwarfs and giants (which were actually formed from MS stars). now, when a star forms, it finds a balance through gravity and pressure. this means that the gravity that is pulling everything into the centre of the star is equal to the pressure of those elements pushing back.
the temperature to fuse H into He is around 150,000,000 K. and as chemists know, temperature is directly proportional to pressure. thus, the temperature cannot change until something happens to change the pressure in our sun. this something is the core of the sun possessing no more H to fuse into He. in a star the size of our sun, it takes 10 billion years (its only 4.8 BY old so dont worry). and yes, when the star runs out of H it does expand and will eventually consume the earth (mars may not be) and then there is a large, unnessary amount of information about red giants that i am not going to cover.
sigh. when will at least one person on this site stat evolution as it is, and not as people think it is???
for starters, evolution does not mean that things get more complicated. it can go either way.
well i will state some obvious evolutionary points in history but whether you believe me is up to you
mass dinosaur exctiction. what do we know about them?? that they were cold blooded animals right? right. when the asteroid struck the earth, and blocking out the sun, there were two kinds of animals on the planet. mammals (us) and reptillians. the reptilians needed warm weather to survive. whereas mammals did not. as the months pass by with very little warmth, the dinosaurs do not have the means of getting food to their cells, and they eventually die. mammals dont need to have sun to have their bodies workin properly. and were able to survive with the little warmth that got through to the earth. Evolution.
another, much more recient evolution. anti-bacterial resistant bacteria. when we use anti-bacterials, we do not kill off every single bacteria. some are resistant to this anti-bacterial. these bacteria are able to reproduce offspring with this same resistance. there is no other type of non-resistant bacteria left, so this new, stronger bacterium have evolved to suit this new world. evolution.
yes right now we dont see evolution happening. but just think about it. there are a few humans out there that are resistant to HIV, people who do not get sick from polutants as much as we used to. we are evolving. it is a slow process, not something that happens over night to an individual.
please please please get your facts straight before stating things on science. science is about truth, and truth is what you must convey.
mudgod
March 3, 2007
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
There is absolutely no scientific, factual support for evolution. No fossils, no interim species, nothing but supposition.
As far as the dinosaurs, the Bible infers that because of Satans rebellion, the earth "became" without form and void (Gen 1:2). Because he refused to fulfill his commission to establish and beautify the earth, he actually caused it to decay and all existing plant and animal life died as a result.
So as I say, adapting and surviving do not constitute evolving.
Kazrith
March 3, 2007
astronomy today, volume 2 stars and galaxies 5th adition. chaisson mcmillan chapter 20. 2005
you call it adapting and surviving. scientists call it evolving.
mudgod
March 3, 2007
Kazrith
March 3, 2007
the bacteria are not a single being mudgod. thousands died and some, with a genetic difference servived. that is evolution.
mudgod
March 3, 2007
ev·o·lu·tion (ěv'ə-lōō'shən, ē'və-) Pronunciation Key n. 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. 2. a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development. c. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. d. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. 3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
I'm thinking that 2c and 3a are the accepted definition of evolution. Where one species becomes another species.
If this is "evolution", I think that is plain enough for anyone to understand. If you want to call what we are talking about something else, fine. But "evolution" does not happen.
Kazrith
March 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
March 3, 2007
right and left handed proteins... never heard of this term and i have been doing cellular biology for three years. my guess one of your teachers used it as an example. in the primortal soup, we have molecules that had the potential to form proteins, sugars and nucleic acids. back then, the earth was much more hostile place. there was no Ozone layer to protect creatures like us, and the earth was much more violent and toxic. volcanoes and radiation provided much of the energy that it took to push chemicals into forming organic molecules. you can even do this experiment.
~~~~~~~~~~The reason you don't hear about them is because they are ommited in textbooks. Just ask your teacher about them. If he does know congratz for him, and challenge him with my topic. But he most likely won't kn ow because it isn't taught. And that is why evolution has such a bug hit. They just don't tell how the first chemichals form into the ight parts of a cell. And they aren't right and left handed proteines, but right and elft handed amino acids. A protene can be made with both, or only right handed ones, but it would not be suitable for life, and then curl up.
Miller-Urey test formed mainly tar, with only trace amounts of amino acids. So chemichal evolution (also one of the 6 evolutions) is scientifically impossible to produce life. If you were to do the epiriment yourself, There wouldn't be any life, or even proteines, but just the building blods for only some proteins, witch are the building block for life
"The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below.
Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2).21 The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’ The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions."
Souce "Answers in Genesis"~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yes, it is nearly impossible for this to happen, ya its got a lot of zeros on the end but it also means that it has a chance of happening. and it did. it took millions of years, but it still happened.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ No it didn't, There is no chance for something, Scientists conclude that 1 to 10^50 is "impossible", or is infitismalley small enough to conclude it is impossible. And the odds of chemichal evolution is 10^600 times smaller than "what is impossible".~~~~
on to stars. when stars form, (like our sun) they form onto what astronomers call the Main Sequence (or MS). The MS houses most of the stars in our universe, with a few exceptions of dwarfs and giants (which were actually formed from MS stars). now, when a star forms, it finds a balance through gravity and pressure. this means that the gravity that is pulling everything into the centre of the star is equal to the pressure of those elements pushing back.
~~~~~~~~~~ In order for their to be a balance of gravity and pressure, The atoms have to be dense enough. But all gas that we see in space is around 400 times thinner than the gas in our own atmosphere. Not even the gas in our atmosphere can pull itself together, It would much rather separate into the vacuum of space. This is because even if an atmosphere was lightyears across, Gravity would literally have no effect. Because there is no pressure even in the middle of the gas. This is because the gas on the outside of the ball of gas moves outward, Meaning there is no chance for the gas inside it to move inward. Because if the gas inside were to move inward, it would cause a vacuum between the gas moving outward, and the gas moving inward. So the gas moving inward would just separate along with all the other gas. In order for stars to form, It must be a liquid, or solid. Liquids can't form in a vacuum, so it has to be solid. Solids aren't able to form through the condensation of light. So no matter could ever pull itself together into stars after the big bang.~~~~~~
the temperature to fuse H into He is around 150,000,000 K. and as chemists know, temperature is directly proportional to pressure. thus, the temperature cannot change until something happens to change the pressure in our sun. this something is the core of the sun possessing no more H to fuse into He. in a star the size of our sun, it takes 10 billion years (its only 4.8 BY old so dont worry). and yes, when the star runs out of H it does expand and will eventually consume the earth (mars may not be) and then there is a large, unnessary amount of information about red giants that i am not going to cover.
~~~~~~~~~~Tempurature is not directly related to pressure. It is highly related, but not directly. Because I can go 9ft underwater, but I'm not twice as hot as when I was above the water. (9 ft water=earth's entire atmosphere) even though there is twice as much pressure. The same with stars. Pressure isn't direct correlate with pressure. But highly correlated. as tempurature goes up, pressure goes up. SO you have things a little backwards. If the tempurature goes up, the pressure in the star goes up, simply because the atoms move faster. And density also plays a huge role in nuclear fusion. The denser the plasma is, the easier it is for nuclei to fuse together. That is because the Nuclei are closer already. And the increased pressure also does a great deal.~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kazrith
March 3, 2007
March 3, 2007
lol!
Nothing can happen by chance? Are you exageratiously inclined? I said that it was impossible. You are being "Willingly ignorant" (2nd peter3). You still beleive it can happen even though it is impossible. You have faith in it. And you're not even questioning evolution (You might be, but it sure doesn't seem like it)Kazrith
March 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
March 3, 2007
hey if it makes you feel better, god guided the process of evolution.
March 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
yes right now we dont see evolution happening. but just think about it. there are a few humans out there that are resistant to HIV, people who do not get sick from polutants as much as we used to. we are evolving. it is a slow process, not something that happens over night to an individual.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People are resistant to HIV because of a harmfuil mutation that prevents them from being effected from it. What happens is the cells of the person who has the HIV virus in them have "keyholes" in witch the HIV virus must have the key for. There are mutations that cause the "keyholes" to become deformed. It keeps the HIV virus from being able to enter the cell, but It also harms the cell because other items that the cell might need aren't able to get in as well. It's like saying if you have a mutation that makes all your bones merge, and cause you to have no joints, You can say it's evolution because you can no longer get arthritis.
Some people who don't get sick from pollutants either lost information that makes them affected by the pollutants, or they mutated a resistance against it.
My guess is number 1, simply because most mutations are harmful or remove DNA. The people resistant to the pollutants are probally weaker, or they can't take in some good chemicals as easily. And it ends up hurting the person.
But here is one thing among evolutionists. Some say evolution is a slow process. Some people say there are short "bursts" of evolution. Because evolution cannot happen fast one group says and evolution can't happen slow the other group says. But creationists believe in both. it can't happen fast or slow because it can't happen at all.
Not only that, but a God wouldn't use a process as inefficient as evolution to create mankind. If evolution was true, then it would contradict the Bible when it says "from one man came sin and death", but evolution says "from death and struggles came man", completely contradictory. And then you would just have to admit that evolution took place within 6 days.
And yes, impossible. It's impossible for water to flow uphill in liquid form when it has a path that leads downhill. That is what is happening. DNA would much rather break down than form into cells.
could you do an exspiriment that would cause 100% of flowing water to decide to flow uphill without your intervention? You're saying that amino acids can do so....
Besides, I'm not going to reply to you anymore because you're hardheaded and a sucker for impossible ideas. You bet your entire exsistance and the exsistance of the universe one stuff that is impossible simply because you don't want to have to deal with a higher authority.
I have refuted all your "proof" of evolution, and you have yet to come up with one I cannot answer. And I'm only 14.
2nd peter 3, is a bible verse that says that the world will be willingly ignorant to the owrds of the wise. And that is what you are doing. And you don't "question" evolution. You are willing to believe it till the death. And you will never change, even when all the facts are shown before you.
~~God bless
Robert
March 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
for starters, evolution does not mean that things get more complicated. it can go either way.
~~~~~~Tell us what kind of evolution you're talking about and it's definition. Chemical, stellar, micro, macro? there are two more, but I forgot em =P, macroevolution says things dont get more complicated, just more complex. That is required for us to have all the variety of animals we have today, and Microevolution explain variations of the genes within a "kind"~~~
well i will state some obvious evolutionary points in history but whether you believe me is up to you
mass dinosaur exctiction. what do we know about them?? that they were cold blooded animals right? right. when the asteroid struck the earth, and blocking out the sun, there were two kinds of animals on the planet. mammals (us) and reptillians. the reptilians needed warm weather to survive. whereas mammals did not. as the months pass by with very little warmth, the dinosaurs do not have the means of getting food to their cells, and they eventually die. mammals dont need to have sun to have their bodies workin properly. and were able to survive with the little warmth that got through to the earth.
~~~~ That is if you believed Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But how come we have unfosilized dinosaur bones in Australia (research reported on AiG website) (When unfosilized bones would disintegrate), How can we find soft tissue inside muscles (the animal) witch are supposedly millions of years old and still look exsactly like the muscles we have today, Can can we find Blood and soft tissue in T-rex bones millions of years old
(Direct quote from Dr. Menton)
"A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana."
How can we find amino acids in fossiles millions of years old? Amino acids should've completely broken down by now. The only explanation is that they wewre all buried and fosilized 4300 years ago. (Animals have to fossilize fast, or they will decay)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution.
another, much more recient evolution. anti-bacterial resistant bacteria. when we use anti-bacterials, we do not kill off every single bacteria. some are resistant to this anti-bacterial. these bacteria are able to reproduce offspring with this same resistance. there is no other type of non-resistant bacteria left, so this new, stronger bacterium have evolved to suit this new world. evolution.
~~~~~~~~~~Define stronger. The mutations that cause bacteria to be resistant is a different type of mutation, and is not the evolution needed to make species truely stronger.
"Penicillin, a chemical extracted from a fungus, acts on the ‘body builders!’ in many bacterial cells. After exposure to penicillin, many bacteria cannot produce murein, a substance used in making and repairing the cell wall of a bacteria. This cell wall is the bacteria’s defense. Without a cell wall, water soaks into the bacteria too fast, and it bursts. Without a cell wall, the bacteria’s normal means of reproduction-splitting in two-cannot be achieved. For all intents and purposes, a bacteria exposed to penicillin is rendered dead or harmless, or at least they used to be.
Experiments in suitable growing conditions have shown that occasionally bacteria lose their cell wall and produce a mutant or degenerate L form. These L forms are less tolerant to change than the normal form and can only function under certain conditions. Compared to the normal bacteria, they are misshapen and have poor tolerance against attack. Except, that is, against attack from penicillin! Having no cell walls, it is of little concern to them if penicillin is present or not. These forms reproduce more slowly than normal bacteria and are therefore usually less of a threat to health than other types of bacteria, but the point to be made is that they cannot normally be treated with penicillin. Some naturally observed bacteria are also without cell walls and a few of them are very dangerous to man. The pneumonia-like, wall-less bacteria contains some real pasties. Without a cell wall penicillin is of little significance to most of these organisms. It would seem likely that these pneumonia-like organisms are descendants of other bacteria that have lost the ability to make a cell wall. They are degenerate forms and their disease producing relationship to man is a degenerate relationship. Their penicillin resistance is not something they gained in the genetic sense, but something they have (in some cases) because of what they have lost."
just because a bacterium is stronger int he circumstance, doesn't mean it's stronger. It jsut means the chemichal has lost the ability to be effected by the chemichal. Not gain an ability to be resistant of it. If it were truely evolution, Then a gene would cause bacteria to be able to control the influx of water it is receiving. Or if it has the ability to continue multipling at the same speed even though there is penicillin atatcking it.
This is the same with all forms of "evolution". there is a loss in genetics, or something that is used to help the cell work good is effected, but as a result, it is immune to something that would hurt it.
March 3, 2007
God guided?
yes right now we dont see evolution happening. but just think about it. there are a few humans out there that are resistant to HIV, people who do not get sick from polutants as much as we used to. we are evolving. it is a slow process, not something that happens over night to an individual.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People are resistant to HIV because of a harmfuil mutation that prevents them from being effected from it. What happens is the cells of the person who has the HIV virus in them have "keyholes" in witch the HIV virus must have the key for. There are mutations that cause the "keyholes" to become deformed. It keeps the HIV virus from being able to enter the cell, but It also harms the cell because other items that the cell might need aren't able to get in as well. It's like saying if you have a mutation that makes all your bones merge, and cause you to have no joints, You can say it's evolution because you can no longer get arthritis.
Some people who don't get sick from pollutants either lost information that makes them affected by the pollutants, or they mutated a resistance against it.
My guess is number 1, simply because most mutations are harmful or remove DNA. The people resistant to the pollutants are probally weaker, or they can't take in some good chemicals as easily. And it ends up hurting the person.
But here is one thing among evolutionists. Some say evolution is a slow process. Some people say there are short "bursts" of evolution. Because evolution cannot happen fast one group says and evolution can't happen slow the other group says. But creationists believe in both. it can't happen fast or slow because it can't happen at all.
Not only that, but a God wouldn't use a process as inefficient as evolution to create mankind. If evolution was true, then it would contradict the Bible when it says "from one man came sin and death", but evolution says "from death and struggles came man", completely contradictory. And then you would just have to admit that evolution took place within 6 days.
And yes, impossible. It's impossible for water to flow uphill in liquid form when it has a path that leads downhill. That is what is happening. DNA would much rather break down than form into cells.
could you do an exspiriment that would cause 100% of flowing water to decide to flow uphill without your intervention? You're saying that amino acids can do so....
Besides, I'm not going to reply to you anymore because you're hardheaded and a sucker for impossible ideas. You bet your entire exsistance and the exsistance of the universe one stuff that is impossible simply because you don't want to have to deal with a higher authority.
I have refuted all your "proof" of evolution, and you have yet to come up with one I cannot answer. And I'm only 14.
2nd peter 3, is a bible verse that says that the world will be willingly ignorant to the owrds of the wise. And that is what you are doing. And you don't "question" evolution. You are willing to believe it till the death. And you will never change, even when all the facts are shown before you.
~~God bless
Robert
Kazrith
March 4, 2007
you have not refruted the plain evidence of the bacteria, you've merely shrugged it off.
and i challenge evolution alot. i am a scientist, i chalange such things because it is what i do. i have yet to find something that goes against it that cannot be explained.
hmmmm... maybe you should listen to that little quote. no one challanges that bible you talk so fondly of. we know that there are interpretations to it, and not the actual bible. how do you know that is says what it says? look at the different variations of david and john, one ends with them shaking hands, one ends with them hugging, one ends with them kissing, one even ended with them starting foreplay.
something that variable is even worse than biology.
March 4, 2007
Sigh
Do you live in the stone age? The apendix was shown to be extrmely important for carrying out immune functions.Today, the appendix is recognized as a highly specialized organ with a rich blood supply. This is not what we would expect from a degenerate, useless structure.
"The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialized structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendixs function is found in its strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel or colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria which are useful there, but which must be kept away from other areas such as the small bowel and the bloodstream.
Through the cells in these lymphoid follicles, and the antibodies they make (see box below), the appendix is involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life&.6 Like the very important thymus gland in our chest, it is likely that the appendix plays its major role in early childhood. It is also probably involved in helping the body recognize early in life that certain foodstuffs, bacterially derived substances, and even some of the bodys own gut enzymes, need to be tolerated and not seen as foreign substances needing attack."
....
Wisdom teeth, They are there for a reason. You are soo closed minded it surprises myself, and I've seen many close minded people. A long time ago, there wasn't toothpaste. there wasn't floss, bacteria was much more common. This all implies that tooth decay can happen extremely rapidly. If there wasn't wisdom teeth a long time ago, people would simply loose all their teeth. It would be impossible for them to keep them. Theyw ould just decay, Wisdom teeth would be able to replace the ones that were lost. But today, when oral care is now recognized, wisdom teeth are now annoying. It all seems like the intelect and forsight of an intelegent creatot. You idiot.
And plus I DID reply about the immune bacteria. The replying thing wasn't working that well, so I edited the topic. Look at it. In fact, I'll just repost it.
---------------------------------------------------
^^Evolution.
another, much more recient evolution. anti-bacterial resistant bacteria. when we use anti-bacterials, we do not kill off every single bacteria. some are resistant to this anti-bacterial. these bacteria are able to reproduce offspring with this same resistance. there is no other type of non-resistant bacteria left, so this new, stronger bacterium have evolved to suit this new world. evolution.^^
~~~~~~~~~~Define stronger. The mutations that cause bacteria to be resistant is a different type of mutation, and is not the evolution needed to make species truely stronger.
"Penicillin, a chemical extracted from a fungus, acts on the body builders in many bacterial cells. After exposure to penicillin, many bacteria cannot produce murein, a substance used in making and repairing the cell wall of a bacteria. This cell wall is the bacterias defense. Without a cell wall, water soaks into the bacteria too fast, and it bursts. Without a cell wall, the bacterias normal means of reproduction-splitting in two-cannot be achieved. For all intents and purposes, a bacteria exposed to penicillin is rendered dead or harmless, or at least they used to be.
Experiments in suitable growing conditions have shown that occasionally bacteria lose their cell wall and produce a mutant or degenerate L form. These L forms are less tolerant to change than the normal form and can only function under certain conditions. Compared to the normal bacteria, they are misshapen and have poor tolerance against attack. Except, that is, against attack from penicillin! Having no cell walls, it is of little concern to them if penicillin is present or not. These forms reproduce more slowly than normal bacteria and are therefore usually less of a threat to health than other types of bacteria, but the point to be made is that they cannot normally be treated with penicillin. Some naturally observed bacteria are also without cell walls and a few of them are very dangerous to man. The pneumonia-like, wall-less bacteria contains some real pasties. Without a cell wall penicillin is of little significance to most of these organisms. It would seem likely that these pneumonia-like organisms are descendants of other bacteria that have lost the ability to make a cell wall. They are degenerate forms and their disease producing relationship to man is a degenerate relationship. Their penicillin resistance is not something they gained in the genetic sense, but something they have (in some cases) because of what they have lost."
just because a bacterium works better in the circumstance, doesn't mean it's stronger. It just means the bacteria has lost the ability to be effected by the chemical. Not gain an ability to be resistant of it. If it were truely evolution, Then a gene would cause bacteria to be able to control the influx of water it is receiving. Or if it has the ability to continue multipling at the same speed even though there is penicillin atatcking it.
This is the same with all forms of "evolution". there is a loss in genetics, or something that is used to help the cell work good is damaged, but as a result, it is immune to something that would hurt it.~~~
Kazrith
March 5, 2007
March 5, 2007
Kazrith
March 5, 2007
March 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
"The appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1.
IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2.
IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream.
The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) system. The lymphoid follicles develop in the appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time when the large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It is likely that its major function peaks in this neonatal period."
Quote from Answerasingenesis.com
Plus babies can die without it. So you shouldn't say it WAS important. It still is.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free