Georgia Is A** Backwards

[Stretch]

That is correct, and there are many attempted explanations for how life first appeared. Abiogenesis seems be getting a lot of attention, but by and large how the first cell first appeared billions of years ago is a subject that we don't know everything about.










Interesting concept. What exactly about our universe would make you call it a 'sand castle' as opposed to a pile of sand? A pile of sand would still be roughly as complex as the sand castle, just less pretty.

In order to establish that we're a 'sand castle' universe as opposed to a 'pile of sand' universe, we'd need several other universes to compare it to.

I'm sure, even if you threw a pile of sand over a cliff, there would still - over millions of years - develop a tiny ecosystem within the pile of sand of sand crabs, parasites, and all of the things that you generally try not to bring back in your shoes from the beach.




Thank you.



We don't have to understand the complexity of everything - as complex system can be created randomly. I'm just saying that if the dice had been cast a bit differently, it may have been another society of vertebrae with the capacity for critical thinking marveling at how *they* came to be out of the trillions of possibilities.



Your faith is no harm to me, that's why I'd never attack it. If it seems like I have been then I apologize. I was just defending the explanation that I've researched and came to the conclusion that it's responsible for the variety of life on earth.

It's not uncommon for me to meet a Christian that came to the same conclusion as me. It's not anti-Christian, just allowing for a different interpretation of the bible.

I had to stop reading your reply at the enboldened section......

Are you serious???

that's like saying a tree is about the same as a pile of carbon....

It's the same material, but one is built with plan, with stability, with purpose; the other just exists.......WOW...[)]

Explain these facts please:

the sun is shrinking, it is burning up, take the same rate at which it is currently shrinking and reverse it several million years (even though evolutionists currently require over 1 billion for their theory to be 'plausible') and the sun would be close enough to the earth to kill everything on it.

The Earths rotational speed is slowing, if you reverse this process several million years the earth would be spinning too quickly to be inhabitable for life.

Why do some planets/moons in our solar system spin the opposite way from the others, we were all formed from a 'swirling cloud of dust' so why are all bodies within the solar system not spinning the same way?

Why is the geological column not found ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD??? Except in text books of course.

the list goes on and on, but I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the world isn't flat.....it just seems so pointless.

 

[cfreetenor]

You stopped reading? Why would you ask me questions before you'd read my post in its entirity? Perhaps the answers lay in the rather large portion that you didn't read.

I'll also note you didn't answer the question - just acted indignant.

 

[cfreetenor]

It's the same material, but one is built with plan, with stability, with purpose; the other just exists.......WOW...

Correct, a plan. The blueprints of which can be found in the DNA.

the sun is shrinking, it is burning up, take the same rate at which it is currently shrinking and reverse it several million years (even though evolutionists currently require over 1 billion for their theory to be 'plausible') and the sun would be close enough to the earth to kill everything on it.

The sun is actually a complex system of gas that has gone and will undergo many changes. As such, you can't just take a behavior that you've been monitoring for less than .0000016% of the sun's life and assume that it's been that way since the sun formed.

This is a bit like looking at the tide as it's approaching low tide, and assuming that it has always receded back into the ocean at the same rate.

The Earths rotational speed is slowing, if you reverse this process several million years the earth would be spinning too quickly to be inhabitable for life.

This isn't true. I assume you're talking about the fact that there are 'leap seconds' several times per decade, making each day seemingly 1.5 milliseconds longer than the last.

Actually, this is based on atomic clocks. which were configured in 1900. As such, that means that each day is 1.5 milliseconds longer than it was in 1900 - so that means a decrease of 1.5 milliseconds per day per century, not per day. If it were per day, we'd be seeing increased instances of these 'leap seconds'.

Why do some planets/moons in our solar system spin the opposite way from the others, we were all formed from a 'swirling cloud of dust' so why are all bodies within the solar system not spinning the same way?

As the gases formed more solid masses, some of them collided. With matter contacting and hitting other matter for billions of years before our solar system even formed, it is perfectly feasible to have a variety of angles, rotation speeds, and directions to interact with.

Why is the geological column not found ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD??? Except in text books of course.

And North Dakota.

the list goes on and on, but I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the world isn't flat.....it just seems so pointless.

I'm willing to listen if you have any actual evidence against an old Earth. I just at present disagree with you because you don't seem to.

 

[IronCore]

I'm willing to listen if you have any actual evidence against an old Earth. I just at present disagree with you because you don't seem to.

You mean the Old Earth thing wasnt covered in Lord Of the Rings?

here is a site you may want to look at pertaining to the geological column...
Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

 

[cfreetenor]

I'll make you a deal. I'll read yours if you read mine.


The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

 

[IronCore]

I'll make you a deal. I'll read yours if you read mine.


The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

I'll be quite honest with you C... I read both and understood neither...


All I read from both was... dirt dirt dirt, rock rock rock, blah blah blah, I'm right your wrong, dirt rocks layers....

I am no geologist and certainly never want to be... I cannot give any other explanation for any of this... Based upon my personal experiences in life... I believe in science, I believe in God and I believe what the Bible tells me... If at any point the two begin to conflict I must default to the Bible...

 

[cfreetenor]

Ha yeah, it gets pretty involved. I'm guilty of scanning past all of the science-y words and looking for the parts that relate what was just said in simple metaphors and pictures.


ETA: Just wanted to point out, the 'tags' section at the bottom of the page is the most absurd combination of words I've ever seen.

 

[billydidit]

So with this theory and and the others you are trying to site... I can throw sand over a cliff for millions of years... and the laws of physics will take over and I will then have a very nice sand castle? Highly doubtful... I will have a big pile of sand....

BTW I have degrees in mathematics and statistics and if you waqnted to get technical....

If you repeated the throwing sand experiment 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times then you would have a very good chance that one of those experiments would result in a sand castle. If you came across this sand castle, you might say that someone built (or designed) it, when the reality is that it was by chance.

Let's say after the big bang we had the same number 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of galaxies in the universe. Can we say that the one plannet with the ideal conditions for life (earth) is any more evidence of intelligent design than the sand castle experiment? No.

If you want evidence for intelligent design you need to look to the beginning of life on this plannet. The oldest, smallest life on this plannet is still the most efficient machine known to man...bacteria. The oldest of which is far to complicated to have been created by chance. The best that all the worlds scientists have been able to come up with are chance creation of amino acids, the building blocks for proteins.

"Now that we know that the ingredients of life could have formed and accumulated in the early oceans, how did the first cell originate? Cell-like blobs called microspheres have been produced by boiling a mixture of lipids and proteinoids. These simple blobs are still a long way from the complexity (with over a thousand different kinds of proteins) of a bacterium."

Even these theories have been disproved because the elements used to conduct the experiments to create amino acids would never have been in the same place in earth's early atmosphere.

So there you have it. Nobody knows. There is no feasible answer for how the first living cell "evolved" because the cell needs about 5 distinct parts that cannot exist without each other. So evolution is not possible at the beginning of life. This leaves us with an equal amount of evidence for "someone tampering with earth and getting life started" and one hell of a "sand experiment" except this time with about a billion more zeros after that 1.

Take your pick kids. Nobody knows... and therefore all theories should be allowed to be researched in schools and universities. Just try taking the god that you worship out of the equation and think of it as thories like aliens or alternative dimensions.

Limiting education to the evolutionary theory is pure ignorance.

peace

-bj

Re: If everything somehow comes from bacteria, where did the bacteria come from

 

[billydidit]

Correct, a plan. The blueprints of which can be found in the DNA.



The sun is actually a complex system of gas that has gone and will undergo many changes. As such, you can't just take a behavior that you've been monitoring for less than .0000016% of the sun's life and assume that it's been that way since the sun formed.

This is a bit like looking at the tide as it's approaching low tide, and assuming that it has always receded back into the ocean at the same rate.



This isn't true. I assume you're talking about the fact that there are 'leap seconds' several times per decade, making each day seemingly 1.5 milliseconds longer than the last.

Actually, this is based on atomic clocks. which were configured in 1900. As such, that means that each day is 1.5 milliseconds longer than it was in 1900 - so that means a decrease of 1.5 milliseconds per day per century, not per day. If it were per day, we'd be seeing increased instances of these 'leap seconds'.



As the gases formed more solid masses, some of them collided. With matter contacting and hitting other matter for billions of years before our solar system even formed, it is perfectly feasible to have a variety of angles, rotation speeds, and directions to interact with.



And North Dakota.




I'm willing to listen if you have any actual evidence against an old Earth. I just at present disagree with you because you don't seem to.

Many believe that a large chunk of iron crashed into a very liquid earth and gave it its iron core and started it spinning. The lefover debris collected into our moon and gravity caused it to circle the earth, as the earth circles the sun. Eventually things did slow down and a crust formed.

 

[billydidit]

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. Jesus is a fraud. And you can kick and scream all you want but there is absolutely NO evidence in ANY history books of Christ's alleged miracles, and next to no evidence that he even walked the earth.

Whereas the historical record of Hitler and the Holocaust is not only abundant but actually factual, making your comparison absolutely insane. But, such seems the Christian way. Were you to actually be reasonable, I think you'd find your faith quite hard to defend...

Actually you are wrong. The great historian of his time Josephus wrote about Jusus Christ in history books that were completely outside the Bible. He claimed that Jesus did , "many miracles." This is odd because Josephus was Jewish and did not recognize Jesus as the son of god, but felt compelled to put Jesus in the history books!

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings.[citation needed]"

So not only did this non biblical historian jive with the writings of the Bible, his writings proved to be accurate in the discovery of Herod's tomb. Which says this bro is legit.

peace

-bj

 

[IronCore]

Actually you are wrong. The great historian of his time Josephus wrote about Jusus Christ in history books that were completely outside the Bible. He claimed that Jesus did , "many miracles." This is odd because Josephus was Jewish and did not recognize Jesus as the son of god, but felt compelled to put Jesus in the history books!

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings.[citation needed]"

So not only did this non biblical historian jive with the writings of the Bible, his writings proved to be accurate in the discovery of Herod's tomb. Which says this bro is legit.

peace

-bj

WOW!

Billy... you have me at a loss for words...

That's good stuff!

 

[billydidit]

WOW!

Billy... you have me at a loss for words...

That's good stuff!

Thanks. That's what happens when you don't watch TV and only read books... or watch PBS, history, science, NOVA specials. Now about the Bible...most of the old testament stories were ripped off from older religions. The deeper you dive the harder it is to accept much of old testament writings. However, one thing that seems to be universal in all religions are the teachings of Jesus Christ.

peace

-bj

 

[LifeEditing]

Limiting education to the evolutionary theory is pure ignorance.

Not really, when you consider that what people are attempting to teach in schools under the scope of creation (aka "intelligent design"), is not the POSSIBILITY of a creator, but the certainty of the god from that miserable rag known as the bible. It's not an attempt to suggest the possibility that existence might have come from a higher being, but instead, that some hippie in the sky created everything in seven days, somewhere around 7,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve had a T-Rex as a pet.

So yes, limiting education to evolutionary theory is quite appropriate, considering that NO ONE in all of religious lobby attempting to insert doctrine into schools, is in any way satisfied with the NOTION of a POTENTIAL creator, but rather, they're trying to further Christian dogma.

Keep it the fuck out. Unless you also want to include Mormonism, Muslim teachings, Buddhism, Hindhu gods, Greek mythology, etc., and call it religious studies instead of HISTORY, then yes, its batshit retarded to even think it belongs next to the study of evolution.

 

[LifeEditing]

Actually you are wrong. The great historian of his time Josephus wrote about Jusus Christ in history books that were completely outside the Bible. He claimed that Jesus did , "many miracles." This is odd because Josephus was Jewish and did not recognize Jesus as the son of god, but felt compelled to put Jesus in the history books!

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings.[citation needed]"

So not only did this non biblical historian jive with the writings of the Bible, his writings proved to be accurate in the discovery of Herod's tomb. Which says this bro is legit.

Really? That's what you've got? *falls over laughing*

I said "next to no evidence"... and this counts as that

Josephus and his writings are controversial to say the least, especially concerning whether or not he was actually Jewish or a convert. And the fact that some of his historical data was accurate, certainly does not make it ALL accurate, especially when it comes to the difference between something tactile (like the location of a specific object), and something more subjective (like the character or existence of a person).

Good times, my friend. Can't wait for more of your sexual fiction, btw - a good read

 

[MAYO]

Not really, when you consider that what people are attempting to teach in schools under the scope of creation (aka "intelligent design"), is not the POSSIBILITY of a creator, but the certainty of the god from that miserable rag known as the bible. It's not an attempt to suggest the possibility that existence might have come from a higher being, but instead, that some hippie in the sky created everything in seven days, somewhere around 7,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve had a T-Rex as a pet.

So yes, limiting education to evolutionary theory is quite appropriate, considering that NO ONE in all of religious lobby attempting to insert doctrine into schools, is in any way satisfied with the NOTION of a POTENTIAL creator, but rather, they're trying to further Christian dogma.

Keep it the fuck out. Unless you also want to include Mormonism, Muslim teachings, Buddhism, Hindhu gods, Greek mythology, etc., and call it religious studies instead of HISTORY, then yes, its batshit retarded to even think it belongs next to the study of evolution.

Religion has no place in state sponsored schools....but knowledge does. You don't even have to name the "creator" or rather the "initiator" in intelligent design. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The manner in which most scientists, including myself, approach ID is that life had "help." My persaonal theory is that an intelligent being, which will remain nameless for the duration of this discussion, had to give life a nudge. Whether that was transplanting the first single cell organism or establishing the first ecosystem; life had help. Abiogenesis and biopoesis are fatally flawed in that the odds are astronomical and evidence of failed inceptions would be present somewhere.

 

[billydidit]

Not really, when you consider that what people are attempting to teach in schools under the scope of creation (aka "intelligent design"), is not the POSSIBILITY of a creator, but the certainty of the god from that miserable rag known as the bible. It's not an attempt to suggest the possibility that existence might have come from a higher being, but instead, that some hippie in the sky created everything in seven days, somewhere around 7,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve had a T-Rex as a pet.

So yes, limiting education to evolutionary theory is quite appropriate, considering that NO ONE in all of religious lobby attempting to insert doctrine into schools, is in any way satisfied with the NOTION of a POTENTIAL creator, but rather, they're trying to further Christian dogma.

Keep it the fuck out. Unless you also want to include Mormonism, Muslim teachings, Buddhism, Hindhu gods, Greek mythology, etc., and call it religious studies instead of HISTORY, then yes, its batshit retarded to even think it belongs next to the study of evolution.

Again you assume that religion (as we know it [christian, jew, morman, muslim, etc]) has something to do with intelligent design. You have an ethnocentric viewpoint which is not uncommon for the ignorant, mainstream American athiest. There is equal if not greater scientific evidence for external intervention than for Darwin's theory of evolution.

By the way, that majority of Doctorate level biologists, cosmonologists, astrologists, paleontologists, and geologists have proven Darwin's theories to be incorrect. It may be true that species change over time, but there is ZERO evidence that species mutate into NEW species according to Darwin. In fact, we still have life forms that pre-date dinosaurs that are almost identical to fossil records.

So why are we still teaching this BS to our kids? It is an outdated theory. Why do we limit education to one theory? The answer = ignorance. People like you have prevented advancements in modern science and medicine since the beginning of recorded history. You don't know how life began. What gives you the right to limit young minds to investigate new ideas that may some day lead to actual discovery of human origin?

Don't think that I'm some kind of religious person. I'm not. I believe that alternative theories should be considered without injecting a specific religion. Aliens, alternate dimensions, supernatural entities, etc... can all be researched without promoting any religion. The theory of intelligent design is a much stronger theory that Darwin's theory of evolution, yet people find answers that they are comfortable with and they just wont let go. Just like the idiots who petition that Pluto is still a plannet. Or that the world is flat. Or that the earth is the center of the universe.

It's the prohibition of free thinking that has hampered human evolution more than any other natural event. I am a student of history and the limited scope of the nazi-like people who prevent new ways of thinking (and new approaches to science) make me sick.

-bj

 

[billydidit]

Not really, when you consider that what people are attempting to teach in schools under the scope of creation (aka "intelligent design"), is not the POSSIBILITY of a creator, but the certainty of the god from that miserable rag known as the bible. It's not an attempt to suggest the possibility that existence might have come from a higher being, but instead, that some hippie in the sky created everything in seven days, somewhere around 7,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve had a T-Rex as a pet.

So yes, limiting education to evolutionary theory is quite appropriate, considering that NO ONE in all of religious lobby attempting to insert doctrine into schools, is in any way satisfied with the NOTION of a POTENTIAL creator, but rather, they're trying to further Christian dogma.

Keep it the fuck out. Unless you also want to include Mormonism, Muslim teachings, Buddhism, Hindhu gods, Greek mythology, etc., and call it religious studies instead of HISTORY, then yes, its batshit retarded to even think it belongs next to the study of evolution.

So you even have an education? The Bible is considered to be one of the greatest (if not the greatest) literary works ever written! It was the first book ever printed and is the best selling book of all time. The Qur’an is a beautiful book. The teachings of buddhism are wonderful. Your ignorance is almost unbelieveable. Yes students should have the option in high school and college to study world religions. This is an important step in understanding the mindset of the global world that these young minds will be exposed to once they graduate. Perhaps it would reduce the number of ethnocentric and ignorant ass holes generated by our pathetic American schools. We are already being passed over by school systems round the world who have educational systems far superior to our own.

I took a class that studied the top 12 major religions of the world. We had cliff notes for the major rules/beliefs of the religious text and we also visited each religion's temple, church, mosque, whatever. It did not make me want to believe any religion, if anything it showed me the differences and how crazy people can be in beliefs, etc.

And they already teach Greek mythology in our high schools you idiot, you would know that if you had actually finished high school.

-bj

 

[billydidit]

Really? That's what you've got? *falls over laughing*

I said "next to no evidence"... and this counts as that

Josephus and his writings are controversial to say the least, especially concerning whether or not he was actually Jewish or a convert. And the fact that some of his historical data was accurate, certainly does not make it ALL accurate, especially when it comes to the difference between something tactile (like the location of a specific object), and something more subjective (like the character or existence of a person).

Good times, my friend. Can't wait for more of your sexual fiction, btw - a good read

NEXT TO NO EVIDENCE = EVIDENCE

It is not logical that such a well respected historian would risk his life to write about Jesus. He was no convert. He was a witness. If you have proof to the contrary, then prove it. So far all you did was take a fact filled couple of paragraphs and dismiss them with a "whatever he does not count." I was a debate champion, let me tell you bro...you lost.

I bet you make a lot of excuses for things that have gone wrong in your life. That is why you are so filled with hate and anger. So much so that you are jealous of my life and my experiences? Well thank you for the compliment.

-bj

 

[Jeton]

Again you assume that religion (as we know it [christian, jew, morman, muslim, etc]) has something to do with intelligent design. You have an ethnocentric viewpoint which is not uncommon for the ignorant, mainstream American athiest. There is equal if not greater scientific evidence for external intervention than for Darwin's theory of evolution.

By the way, that majority of Doctorate level biologists, cosmonologists, astrologists, paleontologists, and geologists have proven Darwin's theories to be incorrect. It may be true that species change over time, but there is ZERO evidence that species mutate into NEW species according to Darwin. In fact, we still have life forms that pre-date dinosaurs that are almost identical to fossil records.

So why are we still teaching this BS to our kids? It is an outdated theory. Why do we limit education to one theory? The answer = ignorance. People like you have prevented advancements in modern science and medicine since the beginning of recorded history. You don't know how life began. What gives you the right to limit young minds to investigate new ideas that may some day lead to actual discovery of human origin?

Don't think that I'm some kind of religious person. I'm not. I believe that alternative theories should be considered without injecting a specific religion. Aliens, alternate dimensions, supernatural entities, etc... can all be researched without promoting any religion. The theory of intelligent design is a much stronger theory that Darwin's theory of evolution, yet people find answers that they are comfortable with and they just wont let go. Just like the idiots who petition that Pluto is still a plannet. Or that the world is flat. Or that the earth is the center of the universe.

It's the prohibition of free thinking that has hampered human evolution more than any other natural event. I am a student of history and the limited scope of the nazi-like people who prevent new ways of thinking (and new approaches to science) make me sick.

-bj

CITATION PLEASE.opcorn:

edit: wtf is a "cosmonologist"? i assumed u meant "cosmologist", but then right after that u include "ASTROLOGISTS"...THAT had better have been a fukn typo!

 

[LifeEditing]

Again you assume that religion (as we know it [christian, jew, morman, muslim, etc]) has something to do with intelligent design. You have an ethnocentric viewpoint which is not uncommon for the ignorant, mainstream American athiest. There is equal if not greater scientific evidence for external intervention than for Darwin's theory of evolution.

By the way, that majority of Doctorate level biologists, cosmonologists, astrologists, paleontologists, and geologists have proven Darwin's theories to be incorrect. It may be true that species change over time, but there is ZERO evidence that species mutate into NEW species according to Darwin. In fact, we still have life forms that pre-date dinosaurs that are almost identical to fossil records.

So why are we still teaching this BS to our kids? It is an outdated theory. Why do we limit education to one theory? The answer = ignorance. People like you have prevented advancements in modern science and medicine since the beginning of recorded history. You don't know how life began. What gives you the right to limit young minds to investigate new ideas that may some day lead to actual discovery of human origin?

Don't think that I'm some kind of religious person. I'm not. I believe that alternative theories should be considered without injecting a specific religion. Aliens, alternate dimensions, supernatural entities, etc... can all be researched without promoting any religion. The theory of intelligent design is a much stronger theory that Darwin's theory of evolution, yet people find answers that they are comfortable with and they just wont let go. Just like the idiots who petition that Pluto is still a plannet. Or that the world is flat. Or that the earth is the center of the universe.

It's the prohibition of free thinking that has hampered human evolution more than any other natural event. I am a student of history and the limited scope of the nazi-like people who prevent new ways of thinking (and new approaches to science) make me sick.

-bj

You didn't read what I wrote. Please try again.