Bolshevik

I may have seen it. I saw some documentary about how unique earth is. Certain things are necessary for life as we know it. If I can remember, 1. Earth is just the right distance from the sun. Not to hot (Venus) Not to cold (Mars) 2. Earth's moon is just a certain size to affect the tides. 3. Earth's mass is just enough so its gravity can hold the atmosphere 4. Earth's chemical composition has the chemicals necessary for life 5. The magnetic field protects us from certain radiation There was more. Basically, the more you look into what it takes for a planet to contain life as we know it, the more unlikely it becomes to find it on other planets. I believe they took some of the calculations astronomers have made to predict life on other planets and added these other factors. The probability greatly dropped.

You can comprehend how species suddenly start laying eggs?

Forget I asked then.

I was thinking like any mature tree.

That's not an answer Garth. I'll post that question on evolution-creation forum. I'm sure that an evolutionist can give answer that at least shows they put some thought into it.

Oenophile, Which evolved first, the chicken (or any egg-layer) or the egg? (I mean this with all seriousness, but I find it humorous too :) )

Would that explain the tail?

Job 40:15 (KJV) Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron 19 He is the chief of the ways of GOD: He that made him can make His sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan in his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. What is being described here? Bullinger seems to think a hippopotamus. I don't think so, "his tail like a cedar tree" makes me doubt that. Here's a cedar tree: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1147440242039295893SofFuu Here's a hippo: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...=image&cd=1 A crocodile then? No. It eats grass. Some speculate it's a sauropod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropod Any thoughts?

Garth, If you think the Bible and Christianity is a farce, go ahead and believe that, I don't care. I've been irradiated with trying to have conversations with Christians about evolution because they normally turn out not to know the first thing about it. Of course non-Christians who believe in evolution turn out to know just as much. (How some Christians reconcile evolution and the Bible I don't know, but that's a doctrinal discussion) When I was preparing for the MCAT I was told the biology section is more verbal reasoning than the verbal reasoning section. And I agree that is the way a lot of biology is: Yak Yak Yak. Look at the evolution link I posted. So much time going into explaining the definition of "theory" and the like. That same prof in the biology review course went on to discuss that we need to "gently turn kids in the right direction when they leave home, don't pull the rug out too quick. Ease them out of their beliefs."(sic) WTF???? How does this help me prepare for the test? What's this got to do with medicine? Another very good prof out of Harvard I had in a molecular genetics course would spend some time explaining the proteins that take part in DNA replication, transcription and translation. Amazing stuff. Absolutely amazing. He would end explanations with "Good job God." (Emphasizing it was awesome, and I agree.) He is a DNA authority. I once e-mailed him with a question to which he replied "Can't talk now, gotta fly to Virginia to testify in a DNA forensics trial" (sic) This was a 800 miles a away. I saw him the next night on the television news. Even if you believe in evolution (as this prof does), God is in the classroom. I've taken many bio, biochem, genetic, molecular biology etc. courses and they just convince me more that evolution (all species on earth, past and present, are descendants of a common ancestor) is unlikely. (edited for grammar)

Now it's on your shoulders to present it.

Oenophile, here's at least one response to the "walking whale that swims" http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C...mp;sb=5&o=0 and here's an easy read pro-evolution work: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf It dives right into religion and explaining what a theory is and blah blah blah. Why is it evolutionists are always on the defense? If they've got the evidence let it speak for itself!!!

I had a prof who was working with me on a problem in quantum chemistry. As we concluded I reiterated back to him the reasoning and results as sort of some final thoughts. He replied, "Yes, IF you believe in the Law of Conservation of Energy." That wasn't the first time he said that to me. He was just trying to get me to realize what assumptions are made when any scientific reasoning is done. Even when work is done based on the Laws of Physics, you realize you are assuming these Laws to be true. Yes, scientists are skeptics. Certainly something most fail to do.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askas...logy/bio039.htm this one? the amount of time a theory has been around, 100, 1000 years, is irrelevant.

Oenophile, which link are you referring to?

Likeaneagle, you might find this interesting. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dragon-history.htm

Marsupials are not unique to Australia. (I mentioned the possum earlier) Just because a critter is found only in one place now, doesn't mean it hasn't been anywhere else. Europe is missing a whole host of species it once had due to humans (The Romans wiped out quit a bit of animals for gladiator games) There are big animals in Africa now, but that doesn't mean those species weren't found elsewere during recorded history. I believe microevolution can explain some of the Ark stuff (I don't want to get into Bible talk too much). Penguins are not unique to Antartica. Galapagos. Darwin did not invent the evolution idea. I think people assume no one else noticed species diversifying until the 1800s. Domesticated animals are an example. (Some even point to evidence of evolution in the Bible, I won't discuss that, you can assume I made that up) Also, just because we can't fully explain the Ark and why things are the way the are now, doesn't prove evolution. A theory, even when later proven false or incomplete, can explain a lot of phenomena. Just because the evolution theory can be used to explain a number of questions, does not make the evolution theory itself true. edited fer gramma

Johniam I understand your point and I have no argument with it. I was quoted and I just want to explain that I believe that evolution can be disproved with science alone. You don't need to even crack open a Bible. People get labeled as being on one side of the argument or the other. But disproving one side doesn't prove the other.

Here's a post I put in a creation-evolution debate forum: Here's a response: I feel more strengthened in my anti-evolution position since he actually gave me more info to argue my position. His seems to be completely hypothetical. Here's a link to an explanation of hybrid vigor: http://www.answers.com/topic/heterosis-1?cat=technology

Oh, do we have a physicist in the house?

Here's a free online book on evolution if anyone's interested http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309051916 Here's one on anti creation science/Intelligent Design. (I love how they say they are "fighting" the creation scientists) http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/ Here's a creation science site: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...ginningTOC.html

It doesn't. I find both sides of the argument(s) fascinating. I've been convinced of each side of the argument at different times. I'd like to see Creation Science get more attention. An unchallenged theory is like an unchallenged political party.

My freshman biology book disagrees with you. Yes I was trying to show you that you don't even understand what you are defending. You assume their are facts and believe what the biologists tell you.I had a good prof. in my undergrad classes. He used to cut articles out of newspapers and but them on our tests and ask "Comment on this" He was showing us how gullible the general public is when it comes to science. (Who said ". . Crap like that is why we are becoming the laughingstock of the world, knowledge-wise."? I think it has little to do with this museum) Well, I'll be teaching the freshmen labs this fall at a nearby university. You're welcome to join me.

Where's that new waitress?

Maybe pour yesterday's coffee out and start a new pot?

(please)