Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

you are twisting facts with theories.

gravity is a fact. I dont need to jumo off a building a show you. I can just throw somethign off the building. and your example of light being effected by gravity was a contradiction in itself.

the theory is, light can be effected by gravity. gravity only works between two bodies that have mass, any mass. if light does not have mass, than light cannot be effected by gravity.

Gravity is a fact. if two objects have mass. their are attracted by gravitational pull. and if light can be effected by gravity, they would have been able to prove it already. no one has ever seen a black hole, in theory you wouldnt be able to see it anyway.

Gravity is a fact, if you think otherwise you are mistaken. things fall due to gravity. that is a fact. gravity exists, and we know why. that is also a fact.

now what you are saying is that light can be effected by gravity but light has no mass so it cannot be effected by gravity. that makes no sense.

that has nothin to do with me jumping off a building.

I could just jump from the ground to prove that gravity exists.

I dont know who you are, but whoever posted this last post, is really a person in need of a science lesson. maybe you should leave this thread.

and who are you to tell me that I should post here again, im the one who made this thread. so shouldnt you be the one to leave?

the bible says that in the end days there will be scoffers who walk after there own lusts, and for this they are willingly ignorant.

that means dumb on purpose.

that is what you are doing.

when you die, you will see that I was right the entire time. see if evolution is true, when I die I worked for nothing. but i didnt lose anything. if Creation (the bible) is true, I would have accomplished my goal and I will live forever in the new demension called eternity. the demension you will never get to live in.

GRAVITY IS THEORY!!!!!!!

www.geocities.com...
modelingnts.la.asu.edu...
www.csmonitor.com...
www.wolframscience.com...
www.bringyou.to...
t2takeda.fc2web.com...
www.jracademy.com...
physics.nad.ru...
arxiv.org...
www.keelynet.com...
www.oddbooks.co.uk...
relativity.livingreviews.org...
www.astro.spbu.ru...
www.circlon-theory.com...
www.usatoday.com...
www.cybercitycafe.com...
sciencenow.sciencemag.org...
www.lns.cornell.edu...

So Xpert, when you gonna jump off the Empire State Building to prove theories are wrong?

like I said before, I dont have to jump off the buliding I could just throw something off the building and see that gravity is effecting it.

ok so if gravity is just a theory, than how come i cant jump off of the earth?

law1
law2
law3


I dont need anymore.

how about you go jump off the empire state building and prove your theory
maybe you can prove me wrong...

You know, I don't know who needs help the most. The closed minded individual who cannot be persuaded by proven facts, or the individual who persists in trying.

Evolution is a scientific theory that is and has been used for a hundred years to make verifiable predictions. In all that time, Evolutionary theory has not been proven wrong even once--if it had been, it would be scrapped in a heartbeat, for a new theory. Further, in that same time span, no alternative theory has ever been presented that could cover all the facts and make verifiable predictions--not one. Should someone come up with a better theory scientists would adopt it post haste; however, until someone does (if they ever do) it would seem logical and prudent to use the theory of evolution since it covers all the currently known facts and can be used--so far successfully--to predict future outcomes.

Further, Darwin's theory of evolution makes no mention of how life started, only how it changed and is still changing. There is an article written by a very well respected christian that has won awards for its eloquence and beauty that perhaps you should read. Don't let the title put you off, it fits very well with this thread. I do not have a link to the original article, so I'll just post the entire thing here:

Could Earthly Religions Survive The Discovery Of Life Elsewhere
In The Universe?

by Paul Davies

The recent discovery of abundant water on Mars, albeit in the
form of permafrost, has raised hopes for finding traces of life
there. The Red Planet has long been a favorite location for
those speculating about extraterrestrial life, especially since
the 1890s, when H. G. Wells wrote The War of the Worlds and the
American astronomer Percival Lowell claimed that he could see
artificial canals etched into the planet's parched surface.
Today, of course, scientists expect to find no more than simple
bacteria dwelling deep underground, if even that. Still, the
discovery of just a single bacterium somewhere beyond Earth
would force us to revise our understanding of who we are and
where we fit into the cosmic scheme of things, throwing us into
a deep spiritual identity crisis that would be every bit as
dramatic as the one Copernicus brought about in the early 1500s,
when he asserted that Earth was not at the center of the
universe.

Whether or not we are alone is one of the great existential
questions that confront us today. Probably because of the high
emotional stakes, the search for life beyond Earth is deeply
fascinating to the public. Opinion polls and Web-site hits
indicate strong support for and interest in space missions that
are linked even obliquely to this search. Perceiving the
public's interest, NASA has reconfigured its research strategy
and founded the NASA Astrobiology Institute, dedicated to the
study of life in the cosmos. At the top of the agenda,
naturally, is the race to find life elsewhere in the solar
system.

Researchers have long focused on Mars in their search for
extraterrestrial life because of its relative proximity. But
twenty-five years ago, as a result of the 1976 Viking mission,
many of them became discouraged. A pair of spacecraft had passed
through the planet's extremely thin atmosphere, touched down on
the surface, and found it to be a freeze-dried desert drenched
with deadly ultraviolet rays. The spacecraft, equipped with
robotic arms, scooped up Martian dirt so that it could be
examined for signs of biological activity. The results of the
analysis were inconclusive but generally negative, and hopes
faded for finding even simple microbes on the surface of Mars.

The outlook today is more optimistic. Several probes are
scheduled to visit Mars in the coming months, and all will be
searching for signs of life. This renewed interest is due in
part to the discovery of organisms living in some remarkably
hostile environments on Earth (which opens up the possibility of
life on Mars in places the Viking probes didn't examine), and in
part to better information about the planet's ancient history.
Scientists now believe that Mars once had a much thicker
atmosphere, higher temperatures, rivers, floods, and extensive
volcanic activity all conditions considered favorable to the
emergence of life.

The prospects for finding living organisms on Mars remain slim,
of course, but even traces of past life would represent a
discovery of unprecedented scientific value. Before any sweeping
philosophical or theological conclusions could be drawn,
however, it would be necessary to determine whether this life
was the product of a second genesis that is, whether its origin
was independent of life on Earth. Earth and Mars are known to
trade material in the form of rocks blasted from the planets'
surfaces by the violent impacts of asteroids and comets.
Microbes could have hitched a ride on this detritus, raising the
possibility that life started on Earth and was transferred to
Mars, or vice versa. If traces of past life were discovered on
Mars but found to be identical to some form of terrestrial life,
transportation by ejected rocks would be the most plausible
explanation, and we would still lack evidence that life had
started from scratch in two separate locations.

The significance of this point is crucial. In his theory of
evolution Charles Darwin provided a persuasive account of how
life evolved over billions of years, but he pointedly omitted
any explanation of how life got started in the first place. "One
might as well think of origin of matter," he wrote in a letter
to a friend. A century and a half later, scientists still have
little understanding of how the first living thing came to be.

Some scientists believe that life on Earth is a freak accident
of chemistry, and as such must be unique. Because even the
simplest known microbe is breathtakingly complex, they argue,
the chances that one formed by blind molecular shuffling are
infinitesimal; the probability that the process would occur
twice, in separate locations, is virtually negligible. The
French biochemist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod was a firm
believer in this view. "Man at last knows he is alone in the
unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged
only by chance," he wrote in 1971. He used this bleak assessment
as a springboard to argue for atheism and the absurdity and
pointlessness of existence. As Monod saw it, we are merely
chemical extras in a majestic but impersonal cosmic drama an
irrelevant, unintended sideshow.

But suppose that's not what happened. Many scientists believe
that life is not a freakish phenomenon (the odds of life's
starting by chance, the British cosmologist Fred Hoyle once
suggested, are comparable to the odds of a whirlwind's blowing
through a junkyard and assembling a functioning Boeing 747) but
instead is written into the laws of nature. "The universe must
in some sense have known we were coming," the physicist Freeman
Dyson famously observed. No one can say precisely in what sense
the universe might be pregnant with life, or how the general
expectancy Dyson spoke of might translate into specific physical
processes at the molecular level. Perhaps matter and energy
always get fast-tracked along the road to life by what's often
called "self-organization." Or perhaps the power of Darwinian
evolution is somehow harnessed at a pre-biotic molecular stage.
Or maybe some efficient and as yet unidentified physical process
(quantum mechanics?) sets the gears in motion, with organic life
as we know it taking over the essential machinery at a later
stage. Under any of these scenarios life becomes a fundamental
rather than an incidental product of nature. In 1994, reflecting
on this same point, another Nobel laureate, the Belgian
biochemist Christian de Duve, wrote, "I view this universe not
as a 'cosmic joke,' but as a meaningful entity made in such a
way as to generate life and mind, bound to give birth to
thinking beings able to discern truth, apprehend beauty, feel
love, yearn after goodness, define evil, experience mystery."

Absent from these accounts is any mention of miracles. Ascribing
the origin of life to a divine miracle not only is anathema to
scientists but also is theologically suspect. The term "God of
the gaps" was coined to deride the notion that God can be
invoked as an explanation whenever scientists have gaps in their
understanding. The trouble with invoking God in this way is that
as science advances, the gaps close, and God gets progressively
squeezed out of the story of nature. Theologians long ago
accepted that they would forever be fighting a rearguard battle
if they tried to challenge science on its own ground. Using the
formation of life to prove the existence of God is a tactic that
risks instant demolition should someone succeed in making life
in a test tube. And the idea that God acts in fits and starts,
moving atoms around on odd occasions in competition with natural
forces, is a decidedly uninspiring image of the Grand Architect.

The theological battle line in relation to the formation of life
is not, therefore, between the natural and the miraculous but
between sheer chance and lawlike certitude. Atheists tend to
take the first side, and theists line up behind the second; but
these divisions are general and by no means absolute. It's
perfectly possible to be an atheist and believe that life is
built ingeniously into the nature of the universe. It's also
possible to be a theist and suppose that God engineered just one
planet with life, with or without the help of miracles.

Though the discovery of microbes on Mars or elsewhere would
ignite a passionate theological debate, the truly difficult
issues surround the prospect of advanced alien beings in
possession of intelligence and technology. Most scientists don't
think that such beings exist, but for forty years a dedicated
band of astronomers has been sweeping the skies with radio
telescopes in hopes of finding a message from a civilization
elsewhere in the galaxy. Their project is known as SETI (Search
for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).

Because our solar system is relatively young compared with the
universe overall, any alien civilization the SETI researchers
might discover is likely to be much older, and presumably wiser,
than ours. Indeed, it might have achieved our level of science
and technology millions or even billions of years ago. Just
contemplating the possibility of such advanced extraterrestrials
appears to raise additional uncomfortable questions for
religion.

The world's main faiths were all founded in the pre-scientific
era, when Earth was widely believed to be at the center of the
universe and humankind at the pinnacle of creation. As
scientific discoveries have piled up over the past 500 years,
our status has been incrementally diminished. First Earth was
shown to be just one planet of several orbiting the Sun. Then
the solar system itself was relegated to the outer suburbs of
the galaxy, and the Sun classified as an insignificant dwarf
star among billions. The theory of evolution proposed that human
beings occupied just a small branch on a complex evolutionary
tree. This pattern continued into the twentieth century, when
the supremacy of our much vaunted intelligence came under
threat. Computers began to outsmart us. Now genetic engineering
has raised the specter of designer babies with superintellects
that leave ours far behind. And we must consider the
uncomfortable possibility that in astrobiological terms, God's
children may be galactic also-rans.

Theologians are used to putting a brave face on such
developments. Over the centuries the Christian church, for
example, has time and again been forced to accommodate new
scientific facts that challenge existing doctrine. But these
accommodations have usually been made reluctantly and very
belatedly. Only recently, for example, did the Pope acknowledge
that Darwinian evolution is more than just a theory. If SETI
succeeds, theologians will not have the luxury of decades of
careful deliberation to assess the significance of the
discovery. The impact will be instant.

The discovery of alien superbeings might not be so corrosive to
religion if human beings could still claim special spiritual
status. After all, religion is concerned primarily with people's
relationship to God, rather than with their biological or
intellectual qualities. It is possible to imagine alien beings
who are smarter and wiser than we are but who are spiritually
inferior, or just plain evil. However, it is more likely that
any civilization that had surpassed us scientifically would have
improved on our level of moral development, too. One may even
speculate that an advanced alien society would sooner or later
find some way to genetically eliminate evil behavior, resulting
in a race of saintly beings.

Suppose, then, that E.T. is far ahead of us not only
scientifically and technologically but spiritually, too. Where
does that leave mankind's presumed special relationship with
God? This conundrum poses a particular difficulty for
Christians, because of the unique nature of the Incarnation. Of
all the world's major religions, Christianity is the most
species-specific. Jesus Christ was humanity's savior and
redeemer. He did not die for the dolphins or the gorillas, and
certainly not for the proverbial little green men. But what of
deeply spiritual aliens? Are they not to be saved? Can we
contemplate a universe that contains perhaps a trillion worlds
of saintly beings, but in which the only beings eligible for
salvation inhabit a planet where murder, rape, and other evils
remain rife?

Those few Christian theologians who have addressed this thorny
issue divide into two camps. Some posit multiple incarnations
and even multiple crucifixions God taking on little green flesh
to save little green men, as a prominent Anglican minister once
told me. But most are appalled by this idea or find it
ludicrous. After all, in the Christian view of the world, Jesus
was God's only son. Would God have the same person born, killed,
and resurrected in endless succession on planet after planet?
This scenario was lampooned as long ago as 1794, by Thomas
Paine. "The Son of God," he wrote in The Age of Reason, "and
sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to
travel from world to world, in an endless succession of death,
with scarcely a momentary interval of life." Paine went on to
argue that Christianity was simply incompatible with the
existence of extraterrestrial beings, writing, "He who thinks he
believes in both has thought but little of either."

Catholics tend to regard the idea of multiple incarnations as
verging on heresy, not because of its somewhat comic aspect but
because it would seem to automate an act that is supposed to be
God's singular gift. "God chose a very specific way to redeem
human beings," writes George Coyne, a Jesuit priest and the
director of the Vatican Observatory, whose own research includes
astrobiology. "He sent his only son, Jesus, to them, and Jesus
gave up his life so that human beings would be saved from their
sin. Did God do this for extraterrestrials? ... The theological
implications about God are getting ever more serious."

Paul Tillich, one of the few prominent Protestant theologians to
give serious consideration to the issue of alien beings, took a
more positive view. "Man cannot claim to occupy the only
possible place for incarnation," he wrote. The Lutheran
theologian Ted Peters, of the Center for Theology and the
Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, has made a special
study of the impact on religious faith of belief in
extraterrestrials. In discussing the tradition of debate on this
topic, he writes, "Christian theologians have routinely found
ways to address the issue of Jesus Christ as God incarnate and
to conceive of God's creative power and saving power exerted in
other worlds." Peters believes that Christianity is robust
enough and flexible enough to accommodate the discovery of
extraterrestrial intelligence, or ETI. One theologian who is
emphatically not afraid of that challenge is Robert Russell,
also of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. "As we
await 'first contact,'" he has written, "pursuing these kinds of
questions and reflections will be immensely valuable."

Clearly, there is considerable diversity one might even say
muddle on this topic in theological circles. Ernan McMullin, a
professor emeritus of philosophy at Notre Dame University,
affirms that the central difficulty stems from Christianity's
roots in a pre-scientific cosmology. "It was easier to accept
the idea of God's becoming man," he has written, "when humans
and their abode both held a unique place in the universe." He
acknowledges that Christians especially face a stark predicament
in relation to ETI, but feels that Thomas Paine and his like-
minded successors have presented the problem too simplistically.
Pointing out that concepts such as original sin, incarnation,
and salvation are open to a variety of interpretations, McMullin
concludes that there is also widespread divergence among
Christians on the correct response to the ETI challenge. On the
matter of multiple incarnations he writes, "Their answers could
range ... from 'yes, certainly' to 'certainly not.' My own
preference would be a cautious 'maybe.'"

Even for those Christians who dismiss the idea of multiple
incarnations there is an interesting fallback position: perhaps
the course of evolution has an element of directionality, with
humanlike beings the inevitable end product. Even if Homo
sapiens as such may not be the unique focus of God's attention,
the broader class of all humanlike beings in the universe might
be. This is the basic idea espoused by the philosopher Michael
Ruse, an ardent Darwinian and an agnostic sympathetic to
Christianity. He sees the incremental progress of natural
evolution as God's chosen mode of creation, and the history of
life as a ladder that leads inexorably from microbes to man.

Most biologists regard a "progressive evolution," with human
beings its implied preordained goal, as preposterous. Stephen
Jay Gould once described the very notion as "noxious." After
all, the essence of Darwinism is that nature is blind. It cannot
look ahead. Random chance is the driving force of evolution, and
randomness by definition has no directionality. Gould insisted
that if the evolutionary tape were replayed, the result would be
very different from what we now observe. Probably life would
never get beyond microbes next time around.

But some respected biologists disagree sharply with Gould on
this point. Christian de Duve does not deny that the fine
details of evolutionary history depend on happenstance, but he
believes that the broad thrust of evolutionary change is somehow
innately predetermined that plants and animals were almost
destined to emerge amid a general advance in complexity. Another
Darwinian biologist, Simon Conway Morris, of Cambridge
University, makes his own case for a "ladder of progress,"
invoking the phenomenon of convergent evolution the tendency of
similar-looking organisms to evolve independently in similar
ecological niches. For example, the Tasmanian tiger (now
extinct) played the role of the big cat in Australia even
though, as a marsupial, it was genetically far removed from
placental mammals. Like Ruse, Conway Morris maintains that the
"humanlike niche" is likely to be filled on other planets that
have advanced life. He even goes so far as to argue that
extraterrestrials would have a humanoid form. It is not a great
leap from this conclusion to the belief that extraterrestrials
would sin, have consciences, struggle with ethical questions,
and fear death.

The theological difficulties posed by the possibility of
advanced alien beings are less acute for Judaism and Islam.
Muslims, at least, are prepared for ETI: the Koran states
explicitly, "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens
and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered
through them." Nevertheless, both religions stress the
specialness of human beings and, indeed, of specific, well-
defined groups who have been received into the faith. Could an
alien become a Jew or a Muslim? Does the concept even make
sense? Among the major religious communities, Buddhists and
Hindus would seem to be the least threatened by the prospect of
advanced aliens, owing to their pluralistic concept of God and
their traditionally much grander vision of the cosmos.

Among the world's minority religions, some would positively
welcome the discovery of intelligent aliens. The Ra=EBlians, a
Canada-based cult recently propelled to fame by its claim to
have cloned a human being, believe that the cult's leader, Ra=EBl,
a French former journalist originally named Claude Vorilhon,
received revelations from aliens who briefly transported him
inside a flying saucer in 1973. Other fringe religious
organizations with an extraterrestrial message include the ill-
fated Heaven's Gate cult and many UFO groups. Their adherents
share a belief that aliens are located further up not only the
evolutionary ladder but also the spiritual ladder, and can
therefore help us draw closer to God and salvation. It is easy
to dismiss such beliefs as insignificant to serious theological
debate, but if evidence for alien beings were suddenly to
appear, these cults might achieve overnight prominence while
established religions floundered in doctrinal bewilderment.

Ironically, SETI is often accused of being a quasi-religious
quest. But Jill Tarter, the director of the SETI Institute's
Center for SETI Research, in Mountain View, California, has no
truck with religion and is contemptuous of the theological
gymnastics with which religious scholars accommodate the
possibility of extraterrestrials. "God is our own invention,"
she has written. "If we're going to survive or turn into a long-
lived technological civilization, organized religion needs to be
outgrown. If we get a message [from an alien civilization] and
it's secular in nature, I think that says that they have no
organized religion that they've outgrown it." Tarter's dismissal
is rather naive, however. Though many religious movements have
come and gone throughout history, some sort of spirituality
seems to be part of human nature. Even atheistic scientists
profess to experience what Albert Einstein called a "cosmic
religious feeling" when contemplating the awesome majesty of the
universe.

Would advanced alien beings share this spiritual dimension, even
though they might long ago have "outgrown" established religion?
Steven Dick, a science historian at the U.S. Naval Observatory,
believes they would. Dick is an expert on the history of
speculation about extraterrestrial life, and he suggests that
mankind's spirituality would be greatly expanded and enriched by
contact with an alien civilization. However, he envisages that
our present concept of God would probably require a wholesale
transformation. Dick has outlined what he calls a new
"cosmotheology," in which human spirituality is placed in a full
cosmological and astrobiological context. "As we learn more
about our place in the universe," he has written, "and as we
physically move away from our home planet, our cosmic
consciousness will only increase." Dick proposes abandoning the
transcendent God of monotheistic religion in favor of what he
calls a "natural God" a superbeing located within the universe
and within nature. "With due respect for present religious
traditions whose history stretches back nearly four millennia,"
he suggests, "the natural God of cosmic evolution and the
biological universe, not the supernatural God of the ancient
Near East, may be the God of the next millennium."

Some form of natural God was also proposed by Fred Hoyle, in a
provocative book titled The Intelligent Universe. Hoyle drew on
his work in astronomy and quantum physics to sketch the notion
of a "superintellect" a being who had, as Hoyle liked to say,
"monkeyed with physics," adjusting the properties of the various
fundamental particles and forces of nature so that carbon-based
organisms could thrive and spread across the galaxy. Hoyle even
suggested that this cosmic engineer might communicate with us by
manipulating quantum processes in the brain. Most scientists
shrug off Hoyle's speculations, but his ideas do show how far
beyond traditional religious doctrine some people feel they need
to go when they contemplate the possibility of advanced life
forms beyond Earth.

Though in some ways the prospect of discovering extraterrestrial
life undermines established religions, it is not all bad news
for them. Astrobiology has also led to a surprising resurgence
of the so-called "design argument" for the existence of God. The
original design argument, as articulated by William Paley in the
eighteenth century, was that living organisms' intricate
adaptation to their environments pointed to the providential
hand of a benign Creator. Darwin demolished the argument by
showing how evolution driven by random mutation and natural
selection could mimic design. Now a revamped design argument has
emerged that fully embraces the Darwinian account of evolution
and focuses instead on the origin of life. (I must stress that I
am not referring here to what has recently become known as the
Intelligent Design movement, which relies on an element of the
miraculous.) If life is found to be widespread in the universe,
the new design argument goes, then it must emerge rather easily
from nonliving chemical mixtures, and thus the laws of nature
must be cunningly contrived to unleash this remarkable and very
special state of matter, which itself is a conduit to an even
more remarkable and special state: mind. This sort of exquisite
bio-friendliness would represent an extraordinary and unexpected
bonus among nature's inventory of principles one that could be
interpreted by those of a religious persuasion as evidence of
God's ingenuity and foresight. In this version of cosmic design,
God acts not by direct intervention but by creating appropriate
natural laws that guarantee the emergence of life and mind in
cosmic abundance. The universe, in other words, is one in which
there are no miracles except the miracle of nature itself.

The E.T. debate has only just begun, but a useful starting point
is simply to acknowledge that the discovery of extraterrestrial
life would not have to be theologically devastating. The
revamped design argument offers a vision of nature distinctly
inspiring to the spiritually inclined certainly more so than
that of a cosmos sterile everywhere but on a single planet.
History is instructive in this regard. Four hundred years ago
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church in Rome
for, among other things, espousing the notion of a plurality of
inhabited worlds. To those whose theological outlook depended on
a conception of Earth and its life forms as a singular miracle,
the very notion of extraterrestrial life proved deeply
threatening. But today the possibility of extraterrestrial life
is anything but spiritually threatening. The more one accepts
the formation of life as a natural process (that is, the more
deeply embedded one believes it is in the overall cosmic
scheme), the more ingenious and contrived (dare one say
"designed"?) the universe appears to be.

Paul Davies is a professor of natural philosophy at the
Australian Center for Astrobiology, at Macquarie University, in
Sydney. He is the author of twenty-five books, including Are We
Alone? (1995) and The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin
and Meaning of Life (1998). Davies won the 1995 Templeton Prize
for Progress in Religion.

Just to close out my overly lengthy post, let me point out that a scientist by the name of J. Craig Venter has, in fact, created life in a test tube, only a very simple virus to be sure, but life none-the-less.








[edit on 26-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 26-6-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
EDIT: New idea to win the election for smart people, have a Neocon, I mean GOP person go on tv and tell christians the truth, they then kill themselves, republicans gone, dems win in a landslide. Just tell them the truth, gravity is only a theory, so they all jump off o tall building and die. On Fox News they have cameras pointed outside as bodies build up on the sidewalk. Then live to any city in the slave states, as you just see bodies rain down from the sky, and in the end 40-45 million christians gone.

I am not advocating murder, just telling them the truth, gravity is only a theory, therefor to prove they are good christians they should jump off of tall building/planes with no parachutes.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by James the Lesser]

Wow James, a new record eh?
A whole new array of dumb posts, screwing up a good discussion, beyond any of your earlier thread screwups.
And you probably have no freaking clue what I'm talking about.
You should seriously be put on global ignore.


[edit on 26-6-2005 by Jakko]

great article Astronomer68, thanks for posting it.

the theory is, light can be effected by gravity. gravity only works between two bodies that have mass, any mass. if light does not have mass, than light cannot be effected by gravity.

Gravity doesn't directly affect light. But when light passes near a star or another object with great mass,it's trajectory is deviated because the mass of the star "bends" spacetime itself. It's hard to explain without a picture.

Originally posted by expert999
ok.. about Gods plan. no one knows what Gods plans are. the4y can believe that Gods plan is something, but their plans is not always Gods plans. The bible says that everything works together for good, IF you love you. Good things happen to people are dont love God but that doesnt mean that God doesnt exist. but God does say in the bible that all things work together for good.read the story of JOB. it explains it all.

Doesn't address the issue why it is somehow justified for God or for anyone else to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent children just to make a dictatorial leader act in line - nevermind that God easily has the ability to change the minds of people without needing to murder thousands of innocent. As a matter of fact, God DID change the mind of the pharaoh, which makes it reasonable to assume God actually enjoyed killing innocent children:

"But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses" (exodus 9:12)


Maybe that's where the US government got the idea from that the sanctions were justified and all Saddam's fault, after all, all that needed to be done was for Saddam to comply.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by expert999
The word Evolution actually has 6 meanings here they are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – The origin with time space and matter (religious)
2. Stellar Evolution – The forming of the starts (religious) stars cannot form according to boyles gas laws
3. Chemical Evolution – the forming of all the elements (religious) fusion works, but you cant fuse past iron
4. Organic Evolution – The origin of life (religious) life begets life. With or without oxygen, life cannot form from non-living material
5. Macro Evolution – changing from a kind of animal or plant to a different animal or plant (religious) no one has ever seen this happen
6. Micro Evolution – variety in the kind (scientific) variation in the kind of animal has been scientificallty proven.

Of course, Evolutionary Biology is a particular subject covered in many areas a Biological studies through out the world.

Anagenesis A pattern of evolutionary change involving the transformation of an entire population, sometimes to a state different enough from the ancestral population to justify renaming it as a separate species; also called phyletic.

Biogenesis- A central concept of biology, that living organisms are derived from other living organisms (contrasts to the concept of abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation, which held that life could be derived from inanimate material).

These are two theories of how life started but haven't been prooven yet.

ok this whole thing about evolution being a theory that turns into your religion when you believe that it happened has become cloudy.


Ive been posting what I believe. I cant prove a thing, I only observe and make a conclusion based on the what the bible says and the facts that exist today.

the evolutionist makes an observation and bases their conclusion on the universe existing without a creator, along with the facts that we see today.

there are two ways to look at the world. if you find another point of view, please tell me.

either someone made the world, or the world made itself.
agree? I see no other choices. now apply that to the whole universe. thats a lot of stuff out there and a lot of that stuff out there probably helps keep our planet alive.

now the earth has a magnetic field. right? and it is getting weaker.
if the earth is billions of years old. 25,000 years ago, according to the rate its been decreasing, the magnetic field would have fried everything on earth.

The sun is loosing mass. its losing about 1% every year. go back I think 150 million years, and the sun would be so big it would be almost touching the earth. and would again fry everything, including the dinosaurs that evolutionists claim were here at that time. by the way, how do they know when dinosaurs were here? its not by carbon dating, because that does not work.

the earth is spinning and is slowing down. spinning at about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. but its slowing down. this is why he have leap year by the way.
but if you go back in time to far, the earth would be spinning so fast, it would give the winds the ability to throw things off the face if the earth.

now if the universe is billions of years old. the earth should have stopped sinning by now or it was spinning really fast.
the sun should be gone by now. or it really was bigger and almost touching the earth.

I didnt even mention the moon. that would have been pretty close to earth about 150 million years ago. close to enough to cause the water on earth to drown everything on earth twice a day.

oh and Gravity is a fact, it exists. the theoretical part about it, is that you dont know all that it can effect. so that theory is, what can be effected by gravity? and how?

Gravity exists people. I dont know how to get it through your heads. but gravity is no theory. it exists.
doesnt it? I cant jump that high. but whenever I do I come straight back down, due to the fact that gravity exists.

Stop posting fraud pseudo science and fake facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This borders spamming!

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Simon666]

good website

Stop posting fraud pseudo science and fake facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This borders spamming!

you know, I have come to the conclusion that you dont like that facts that I give. if they are fake, prove that they are fake, if you cant, then get off my back.

you cant justify your theory. all the facts fit my theory. and some facts that supports your theory even support my theory.

and its not spamming. you are spam. you cant shut up just because you think that your religion has to be right. the only reason that you think its right is because you hope that its right. you hope that there is not God or a creator. guess what if you are wrong, you lose a lot. if im wrong, I lose nothin.

the KJV of the bible was translated directly from the original text. so its pretty much factual.

my theory exists in a book. and so does yours.
my theory exists in the bible and your exists in the textbooks on schools.

and because of your reactions to the posts on this thread, it shows that evolution is a religion. you have no facts to back up your theory.

EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION
RELIGION

Originally posted by expert999

you know, I have come to the conclusion that you dont like that facts that I give. if they are fake, prove that they are fake, if you cant, then get off my back.

you cant justify your theory. all the facts fit my theory. and some facts that supports your theory even support my theory.

Sir, did you even bother to read my post of lastnight? If you did not, please do so. If you did read it, did you understand it? If you did not understand it then please ask for clarification on any points you did not understand and I will be happy to clarify them to the best of my ability. If you both read it and understood it, which seems quite beyond the realm of reason, then you would not continue to post the absolute nonsense that you do unless you are actually stupid.

ok and while I take the time to read ALL of that hige post.. you do me a favor and answer these quesions honestly.

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

I cannot answer your questions, my ignorance is bountiful, but I do believe in GOD and I do believe that what I think of as GOD designed the universe. A belief in GOD does not preclude you from using the brain GOD gave you in observing the universe and trying to understand it. However, rejection of provable/proven facts because they do not fit neatly into your personal belief system is, by reasonable men, generally reason enough to suspect that your personal belief system is somehow faulty. A wise man would then try to modify his belief system to account for those things which could not be accommodated before. That, in a nutshell, is the approach of science. Try it, you may even like it.

Just to close out my overly lengthy post, let me point out that a scientist by the name of J. Craig Venter has, in fact, created life in a test tube, only a very simple virus to be sure, but life none-the-less.

im sure it took an intelligent process.

show me a link... prove it to me... get me to believe your religion...

I'm off to church in a minute or so, but if you Google the name of the scientist I provided many links will be presented. You'll have to filter through them, but you can find the proof you're looking for.

thats pretty messed up that you expect for me to read your long post. but you cant answer these simple questions. its ok though, I can see you backing down due to my being correct and you in error.

if you believed in God then you cannot believe in evolution. you cannot walk the thin line. God did not use evolution. the bible even says so. he created everything is six days. he didnt make it evolve. he made it.

so either God made the universe or it made itself. and since you said that you believe that God made the universe. the only form of evolution you can possibly believe in is what is called micro evolution. because macro does not happen. why it is called micro evolution, I dont know but all it really is it a variation within the kind of animal.

all other terms of evolution never happened, it was made up to make the bible look fake.

your theory no more scientific than mine. what science supports your theory? I havent seen any yet....