The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist, page 9

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:34 PM

link

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Their are no true Scientists Calling it the THEORY OF EVOLUTION ANYMORE. The Human Genome Mapping Project put that arguement to reat ONCE AND FOR ALL!

We could just ask one of the Genome Project Scientists what he thinks:

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

SplitInfinity

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:45 PM

link

Originally posted by Azadok
reply to post by SplitInfinity

TextTheir are no true Scientists Calling it the THEORY OF EVOLUTION ANYMORE. The Human Genome Mapping Project put that arguement to reat ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Well it is safe to say you did not watch the video because the scientist refutes what you just said , I will go one step further and call this statement an out and out lie to deceive anyone who has not looked into the issue . There are scientists on both sides of the fence and for you to say otherwise is one hi dred percent delusional .

The definition of a Scientist...besides whatever University requirements and degrees may legally be required...is defined as a person who uses the SCIENTIFIC METHOD in order to eventually come to the FACT of a matter. You can google...SCIENTIFIC METHOD IF YOU WISH...it is not necesary for those here who are familiar with it.

Basicaly....an Issue changes from a Theory to a FACT once the Theory can be PROVEN with THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....and the FACT that we are using GENETIC ENGINEERING RIGHT NOW....as well as can observe EVOLUTION not only in the fossil records as well as Prove it through The Human Genome Mapping Poject although it was already proven through our ability to map the Genomes of other much simpler creatures before wetook on something as complex as a Human and compared our DNA and RNA along with Recumbant Viral DNA with not only other primates but many diferent species as in the womb..a Human Fetus goes through periods where it is Plant Like, Reptilian, Amphibian....we all breath Oxygenated Fluid through our lungs that act like GILLS while in the womb....and many other temporary states while we develop as well s ALL HUMANS IN THE WOMB ARE FEMALE...until our EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPED GENETIC CODE deciedes to start secreating certain HORMONES to Change us or develop us into a specific type of female or Male or Gay Male or Female or some small number are born with both Male and Female Sex Organs....or double x or double y chromosone or infinite combinations.

I was born a White Alpha Male who LOVES EVERYTHING ABOUT WOMEN but I have no issue or hatred of people that are of different Sexual Orientation. I am 6 ft. 1 inch...lean muscular...Dirty Blonde Hair and Blue/Green Eyes with an IQ of 174...this is all Genetic...although I was a chubby 5 year old but my Military Dad had me work off the baby fat pronto and I am also good in Music and abstract Concepts...all Genetic. I was born with a Killer Immune Sysyem and I am never sick for any length of time....I was born STRONG and competitive...I love Football...Patriots Fan...but I abhore Violence and even though I am well trained in Violent acts and am very good at it....I take NO PLEASURE IN IT! I also believe that Women are just as strong or if not stronger than Men in some aspects and vice/versa...that's one of the reasons I love women...I also will not tollerate a Man/Child tobeat up on a Woman or child or girl...this is not a true man...again...this is all genetic. What is not Genetic is my upbringing which is taught to me by my parents...but it was my Genetics to allow me to listen and their genetics to teach me what was important. The man in the VID is NO SCIENTIST. He is a person who is a FLASH POINT VETURE CAPITALIST. What he truely believes could be anything. Split Infinity

SplitInfinity

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:51 PM

link

reply to post by EnochWasRight

As I have said what seems a Million times on this board...there is no conflict in Belief in a GOD and EVOLUTIONARY FACT. EVOLUTION is not in conflict with CREATIONISTS....just their time table. I have no disespect for a person who states that they believe A GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE OR MULTIVERSE. This could be true but the method of CREATION would be EVOLUTION...as EVOLUTION defines how EVERYTHING CAME INTO BEING....not just Humans or Earth. Split Infinity

EnochWasRight

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:59 PM

link

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by EnochWasRight

As I have said what seems a Million times on this board...there is no conflict in Belief in a GOD and EVOLUTIONARY FACT. EVOLUTION is not in conflict with CREATIONISTS....just their time table. I have no disespect for a person who states that they believe A GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE OR MULTIVERSE. This could be true but the method of CREATION would be EVOLUTION...as EVOLUTION defines how EVERYTHING CAME INTO BEING....not just Humans or Earth. Split Infinity

Evolution is a result and not a cause. Evolution may very well be a programming feature to adapt life to higher order as it grows sentience. The more plausible view is to see it for what it is. Evolution says that matter creates consciousness. This simply is a lie. We know better from the theory to be able to discount this as part of the equation. Consciousness is necessary to change the states of matter to order and purpose. Design is obvious in all systems that support the parts from the governing of the whole. This is foundational to what the theory and observation actually suggests.

edit on 21-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

metamagic

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:09 PM

link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Is it even possible to deny a Creator based on our current understanding of information entropy, collapsing wave function and genetics? Obviously, consciousness is at the heart of all we know. Consciousness preexists matter in a form to purpose. The acorn is the enfolded oak tree of information to form. This is engineering and design. When you realize this, see your own information as either saved or lost by the blueprint we are given as a gift. The information to translate your essence beyond the material is available.

(1) No where in the video is there any discussion of evolution or intelligent design so the title of your post is blatant lie.

(2) You make a false inference here that organized complexity must have been designed by "someone" based on your assumption that the laws of nature just could not work that way.

(3) I personally do not feel that genetics accounts for the sorts of things the video displayed, and there is clearly more at work here than the effect of DNA, but I do reject the idea that we have to jump to religion as the only other explanation. There are many other possible explanations, none of which require an intelligent designer.

LErickson

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM

link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight[/i

You don't need sound to see the design in the video, nor do you need sound to hear the Word of God in the design of the baby. An oak tree is the information, not the form it occupies. Spirit is information that is conscious, not the matter it uses for form and expression.

What a waste of time this was. I just a read a great book by a professor Dr. John Sanford from Cornell on entropy disproving evolution. I had seen him speak live so I got his book. It was great. It was full of big concepts that you seem to enjoy that devoid reality laden details sound terrific. It is also full of logical fallacies and even a few blatant mistruths.

Most glaring though is that this Christian scientist in the field of genetics wrote a book claiming to make a case for God. All he does those is attack Darwin. I guess he needs to catch up with modern evolutionary theory as he bashed things evolutionary scientists already proved wrong anyway. If you want to make a case for God and all you do is attack ONE SINGULAR opposing concept, you only win the choir over.

Razimus

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link

Nice video, this guy wrote the code for the MRI, I agree with him, atheists will say believers are below them in intelligence, when such is not the case nor ever will be. When it gets down to it this will not persuade the un-believers from believing, because they do not have the 'eye' which can see.

ChaoticOrder

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Meaning? You seem to be confused... living systems have no inherent meaning, their only "goal" is to propagate and reproduce... they must have this instinct or they will die. Of course the very first life forms probably didn't have this instinct, but it was developed because evolution decided a species was more fit to survive with this instinct, thus the trait prevailed. The rest of the "meaningful" functions are simply more complex functions built on top of that in order to further our ability to survive.

To possess a goal, matter must have selfrealization.
How did I know you would twist what I said by picking out the way I used goal, I even put the word in quotation marks just to make sure you wouldn't take it literally, but you still did... this argument is so futile, you wont even begin to try to understand. All the pseudo-scientific babble in the world is not going to make evolution any less real. You are trying to declare such a process is simply impossible, that sir is absurd and extremely close minded. Just because evolution is real doesn't mean some sort of God doesn't exist. You are just so stuck in your ways of thinking this was all designed you utterly fail to see how it could naturally develop through a mindless process over billions of years. I have nothing more to say and I wont even be reading your response to this post because everything you say is nonsensical dribble of pseudo-scientific absolutes presented by someone who in actuality knows very little about how the world works.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Evolution says that matter creates consciousness. This simply is a lie. We know better from the theory to be able to discount this as part of the equation. Consciousness is necessary to change the states of matter to order and purpose.

Consciousness is not necessary to change anything. The nuclear reactions in the sun happen unconsciously. The wind blows unconsciously. The Universe grows and changes unconsciously. Given billions and even trillions of years eventually those random changes are going to form something you might label as "ordered", and in fact many laws of physics naturally result in these self-organized ordered systems that arise out of pure chaos, and can be explained in purely mathematical terms. It's order out of chaos. Thus one would eventually expect, no matter how slim the chances of it occurring, that this so called "random matter" will form systems that represent something we might call a "living" biological organism.

It's just that simple, it's not impossible no matter how you try to spin it using your nonsensical pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. From there those amazingly simple life forms are subject to the process of evolution, the weak will die off and the strong will survive, through millions and trillions of micro-evolutionary mutations, macro-evolution takes place and designed systems so complex and mind-boggling that one may think it's absurd to assume some sort of natural mindless process is what created them... and they may try to attribute some sort of divine creator to those systems.
edit on 22-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

SplitInfinity

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by EnochWasRight

As I have said what seems a Million times on this board...there is no conflict in Belief in a GOD and EVOLUTIONARY FACT. EVOLUTION is not in conflict with CREATIONISTS....just their time table. I have no disespect for a person who states that they believe A GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE OR MULTIVERSE. This could be true but the method of CREATION would be EVOLUTION...as EVOLUTION defines how EVERYTHING CAME INTO BEING....not just Humans or Earth. Split Infinity

Evolution is a result and not a cause. Evolution may very well be a programming feature to adapt life to higher order as it grows sentience. The more plausible view is to see it for what it is. Evolution says that matter creates consciousness. This simply is a lie. We know better from the theory to be able to discount this as part of the equation. Consciousness is necessary to change the states of matter to order and purpose. Design is obvious in all systems that support the parts from the governing of the whole. This is foundational to what the theory and observation actually suggests.

edit on 21-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

WRONG...and PROVABLY WRONG. There is only two ways to change the state of matter we currently have proof of and a Third which would involve the UNIFIED FIELD THEORY in which Matter and Energy are interchangable thus at this level of understanding...which we Humans are no where near at....because we need to evolve Higher Brain Function....but some out of town...FRIENDS?...are fully adept at using....are thus.

When our Sun a Star Fuses a Form of Hydrogen into Helium just like in a Thermonuclear Bomb....Fusion creates a different Element.

In the case of much heavier Elements...these are all the byproducts of Supernova Exposions....Elements like Gold, Uranium, Plutonium...etc.

Human beings are comprised of elements that have evolved into Molecules through simple Chemistry....take some Hydrogen and some oxygen...run an electrical current through it or expose it to UV Radiation and you get WATER or H20. Some Elements exist naturally as a Molecule such as O2...it is still considered an element even though there aretwo Atomic Nucleus'...but it is also considered a Molecule of Oxygen or Molecule of a singular Element. Conciousness plays no part in Elemental Evolution.....or Molecular Evolution as this is how conditions and materials on Earth under the right conditions formed long Chain Ammino acids which became DNA nd RNA which eventually evolved into singular Celled Life.

An example of a Non-Living thing that contains DNA is a VIRUS. A VIRUS is not ALIVE...ONE OF THE PARAMETERS OF LIFE IS THAT IT CAN REPRODUCE ON IT'S OWN. I VIRUS needs a Host to reproduce. The two men who won a Noble prize in their work with Virus' won it in CHEMISTRY as a VIRUS is NOT ALIVE but a chain of DNA that is a step below on the evolutionary scale but very close to Life.

This example shows how the Non-Living can be closely evolved ona Molecular Level with Life and how given the right conditions, material and enviroment...GENESIS. Split Infinity

MrXYZ

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Evolution says that matter creates consciousness.

You might wanna read a basic article about the theory, because it makes no statements regarding "consciousness". How on earth can you criticize something you so clearly don't even understand?

Consciousness is necessary to change the states of matter to order and purpose.

That's your BELIEF. Provide some facts to prove that claim, or stop pretending you're stating facts

Design is obvious in all systems that support the parts from the governing of the whole. This is foundational to what the theory and observation actually suggests.

Actually, it doesn't...and we have ZERO evidence for a "creator"

You're basically using 2 main arguments, god of the gaps, and argument from complexity...both are complete and utter nonsense.

Also, why do you keep on pretending the video spoke out in support of creationism??? No where in the video do they present anything in favour of creationism!!
edit on 22-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

MrXYZ

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by SplitInfinity

Their are no true Scientists Calling it the THEORY OF EVOLUTION ANYMORE. The Human Genome Mapping Project put that arguement to reat ONCE AND FOR ALL!

We could just ask one of the Genome Project Scientists what he thinks:

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

Have you read the book? I don't think so

Collins is firmly AGAINST intelligent design, and actually supports the theory of evolution. He's also against young earth creationism. He simply believes (emphasis on "believes", because he admits himself he doesn't provide conclusive objective evidence) in evolutionary creation. Read the book

Deetermined

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I'm confused by most of your statements throughout this thread such as:

So you are asking where all the energy in the Universe came from? The Big Bang no doubt, the evidence is more than clear on that... but no one really knows how the energy was actually created or what sparked the Big Bang. And this is where you're starting to have a real argument.

Of course the Big Bang may have been sparked by some sort of intelligence, I can admit that much... However, what has happened after the Big Bang is purely coincidental which ever way you look at it, pure chaos and undeterministic probabilities. If there is such a God that sparked the creation of our Universe, there is not a single doubt in my mind that the Universe was left to develop on it's own, in it's own natural way to exhibit it's own natural beauty and unexpected probabilities.

Then you go on to make statements like:

TextMeaning? You seem to be confused... living systems have no inherent meaning, their only "goal" is to propagate and reproduce... they must have this instinct or they will die. Of course the very first life forms probably didn't have this instinct, but it was developed because evolution decided a species was more fit to survive with this instinct, thus the trait prevailed. The rest of the "meaningful" functions are simply more complex functions built on top of that in order to further our ability to survive.

What? Who created the need for living systems to propagate and reproduce? They have "instinct"? Then you say, "but it was developed because evolution decided"? So, now evolution has it's own form of intelligence because it has "instinct" and it's capable of "deciding"? Really?

Then, later you say this:

You are just so stuck in your ways of thinking this was all designed you utterly fail to see how it could naturally develop through a mindless process over billions of years.

Doesn't that kind of contradict the previous quote? Which is it? Evolution is mindless or it has "instinct" and "decides"?

In my opinion, thinking that a higher intelligence might have "sparked the universe", but didn't go on to create a design for the rest of it seems absurd. Creating "order out of chaos", "mindless processes", and constantly using the word "random"? These are merely words that you use to basically state that it's way beyond your comprehension and you really have no idea.

Nothing is random. You can not create order out of chaos. The only thing that is clear is that science has no "real" explanation for how it works except for in a small way. Microevolution, maybe. Macroevolution, never.

Why? If man were able to find answers to it all, which God did not intend, they would corrupt it.

EnochWasRight

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

How did I know you would twist what I said by picking out the way I used goal, I even put the word in quotation marks just to make sure you wouldn't take it literally, but you still did... this argument is so futile, you wont even begin to try to understand. All the pseudo-scientific babble in the world is not going to make evolution any less real.

My premise is not that evolution is not real. Things do evolve for sure. My premise is that evolution is a result and not a cause of results. An oak tree is always going to be an oak tree. The programming in the oak tree may adapt to its surroundings over time. We don't have evidence for this. The theory that all life is the result of matter arising to purpose and design is a false notion. The reason the evolution paradigm cannot stop using words that describe consciousness is because consciousness is needed to change the states of matter. You are correct to see that the argument is futile. It is. When we see a paradox of two reflections, both are not false. They are each true by the excluded middle. Here's an example.

If a train engineer blows his whistle, the pitch for him does not change. His friend on a porch hears the whistle change pitch as he passes. Both have an argument about the pitch changing as the train passes. They are both correct when they see the excluded middle of the Doppler Effect.

With our current perspective, we lack a reflecting point to see God. Rumi the Sufi says it best.

"The light which shines in the eye is really the light of the heart. The light which fills the heart is the light of God, which is pure and separate from the light of intellect and sense.

God created pain and sorrow that happiness might show itself by contrast. For hidden things are made manifest by means of their opposites: since God has no opposite, He is hidden."

XyZeR

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
My premise is not that evolution is not real. Things do evolve for sure. My premise is that evolution is a result and not a cause of results.

Have you ever read your own sentences?
Because you've contradicted yourself thrice now in 3 sentences, ( perhaps a new ATS record?)
and yet you expect us to have a reasonable discussion with you?

An elaborate troll is what you are imho.

Barcs

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Barcs

I'm convinced that the more intelligent you are the more you can't deny the complexity of life points to the magic that was set in motion by God. Say what you want about the Bible. It's the only thing I've ever seen that qualifies to be Gods word.

Well from all the surveys and studies I've seen, usually people who do not believe in a god or do not follow a religion have a higher IQ. That's what the statistics point toward, although obviously its not always the case as many scientists do believe in god. I think it's really the bible literalists that actually have the lower IQ because it requires a complete surrender of the mind and critical thinking. Atheism / agnosticism is a much more logical standpoint because it doesn't rely on faith, guesswork and appeal to magic to explain what science does not yet know. I admit I don't know the full answer, hence why I'm agnostic to a universal creator. The process and mechanisms of evolution are scientific facts, however, and its a bit insulting to insinuate that people don't see god in design because they aren't intelligent enough. It's because there's no actual evidence toward it, only guesswork. Not a single piece of objective evidence to suggest a creator or process of creation ever occurred.

randyvs

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link

reply to post by Barcs

Well from all the surveys and studies I've seen, usually people who do not believe in a god or do not follow a religion have a higher IQ. That's what the statistics point toward, although obviously its not always the case as many scientists do believe in god. I think it's really the bible literalists that actually have the lower IQ because it requires a complete surrender of the mind and critical thinking. Atheism / agnosticism is a much more logical standpoint because it doesn't rely on faith, guesswork and appeal to magic to explain what science does not yet know. I admit I don't know the full answer, hence why I'm agnostic to a universal creator. The process and mechanisms of evolution are scientific facts, however, and its a bit insulting to insinuate that people don't see god in design because they aren't intelligent enough. It's because there's no actual evidence toward it, only guesswork. Not a single piece of objective evidence to suggest a creator or process of creation ever occurred.

I agree believe it or not. And what I wrote did come off a bit insulting . Apologies, but it wasn't meant that way.
What I was trying to point out was this guys intelligence is obviously way above mine, yours and I would venture to say that in the scope and magnitude of things he mentions so casually. This guys I.Q. must be massive

Also I know myself facts and logic do not always produce truth. Sometimes to produce a truth you have to have an ability toi see beyond facts and logic. Nothing spiritual will ever produce facts and logic. A lot of people chase their own tail in this manner. Including you Barcs. Not an insult at all. But how can you not step outside the box and have a look at the bigger picture at every point along the way in the search for truth ? If you yourself found absolute proof would you believe ? Well like you said that will never happen. So you just locked yourself out..
edit on 22-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Sweetmystery

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Hi EWR, You have done very well standing up for what your Heart tells you is True-- It's been very nice to read this.

I too agree, our Reality is not made of matter, our Real self is eternal and is beyond the appearances of time-space-linear-world.

There was a very special teacher who was speaking on this subject many years ago. There are some recordings of his that several people have posted on youtube. I thought you would really appreciate this so here is the link. I do not know how to imbed it.

www.youtube.com...

If you like him, he has some wonderful books still being published (he has passed on)

The one book that would just bring you great joy to read is his last book.

It is rather prophetic, written in 1986 and even more significant now-- titled "The Child Within Us Lives! A Synthesis o Science,Religion an Metaphysics".

In that book he explains these quantum ideas and connects it all to our own Divine Selfhood (The Child) A really enlightened man. You'll see.

Well, thanks for all the good videos on too I really like them!

SweetMystery

edit on 22-3-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)

Prezbo369

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to by Prezbo369

This has to be one of the most incoherent paragraphs I have ever read.

Because you didn't bother watching the video or paying attention in the thread.

A very typical and unsurprising response. Even here you display your disgraceful grasp of the English language.The fact is that I have read the entire thread and I have watched the entire Susskind video and the vast majority of what you have posted is incoherent babble.

Even the thread title makes no sense....

Deetermined

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link

Originally posted by Barcs

Well from all the surveys and studies I've seen, usually people who do not believe in a god or do not follow a religion have a higher IQ. That's what the statistics point toward, although obviously its not always the case as many scientists do believe in god. I think it's really the bible literalists that actually have the lower IQ because it requires a complete surrender of the mind and critical thinking.

Well, it looks like Razimus was right about someone coming along and making such a statement, but then you turned around and contradicted yourself in the same paragraph too.

It has nothing to do with IQ. It has everything to do with having enough imagination mixed with logic to explore all of the possibilities.

Atheism / agnosticism is a much more logical standpoint because it doesn't rely on faith, guesswork and appeal to magic to explain what science does not yet know. I admit I don't know the full answer, hence why I'm agnostic to a universal creator.

How are terms like "random" and "big bang" logical when science is explaining what it still does not know? Do those words really seem logical to you? Does it not seem logical that everything in the universe works in a perfect order and everything in it affects everything else that is in it? Does it not seem logical that only something else that was perfect could have created that perfect order? The only thing that isn't perfect, is science's understanding and explanation for it.

The process and mechanisms of evolution are scientific facts, however, and its a bit insulting to insinuate that people don't see god in design because they aren't intelligent enough. It's because there's no actual evidence toward it, only guesswork. Not a single piece of objective evidence to suggest a creator or process of creation ever occurred.

It's not about being intelligent enough. It's about being imaginative enough, but yes, it does require a certain amount of logic mixed with it.

The problem with most people who only rely on science is that they only hold onto what LITTLE has been discovered by science.

The only thing I know for sure is that science will never come up with most or even half of the answers. As soon as they think they've come closer to an answer, they'll discover that they were further away from all the answers than they even realized. When it comes to human existence, they won't even come close, even though they think they will.

"Are There Missing Pieces to the Human Genome Project?"

"A new study finds up to 250 regions where the reference genome sequenced over 13 years may be missing information."

www.scientificamerican.com...

Here's what I know in my heart. God will never allow man enough progression in science so to corrupt his creation. He'll let us all destroy ourselves first. Let's face it, we're well on our way to doing just that. He will prove that we aren't as smart as we think we are. We corrupt everything we touch and control and He knows it.

Prezbo369

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link

Originally posted by Deetermined

What? Who created the need for living systems to propagate and reproduce?

Who? why would you automatically assume that 'someone' created this requirement? reproduction is a requirement for life, if it doesn't reproduce its not alive, its as simple as that.

Evolution is mindless or it has "instinct" and "decides"?

Two words

Natural selection

look it up

Nothing is random. You can not create order out of chaos.

Ever watched raindrops falling into a puddle? have you ever looked at a snowflake? If you have, you would've witnessed perfect order produced from complete chaos.

The only thing that is clear is that science has no "real" explanation for how it works except for in a small way. Microevolution, maybe. Macroevolution, never.

Macroevolution is merely a lot of microevolution. It has been observed in real-time, in the laboratory and in nature many times. Science has a pretty complete and comprehensive explanation for how it works.

Your entire post was one giant cliché. Its the type of garbage that creationists have been peddling since the 60s, they were completely refuted back then but these days its almost amusing.

edit on 22-3-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)