Top Ten Scientific Proofs of Creation

[supermegaman]

this looked fascinating! http://www.christiansentry.com/top-t...s-of-creation/

here's the first three.

(1) Irreducible complexity

The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive organs need to exist at the same time and be fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. Ever thought to yourself how you wanted to be able to fly? Have you started to grow feathers or wings yet? Well these things take time, you suppose to yourself. How do you inform your offspring, tens of millions of years down the line of this need to fly? The amebas and protozoa had the same problem if they expected to ever climb out of the marshes and onto land. That’s one of the many problems of evolutionist theory. How does an organism make itself advance into a more complex form?

(2) Earth is fine-tuned for life.

Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples. A stable magnetic field that is not too weak or strong had to exist. Bodies of water and land had to be present for that life form to have a home as well as a stable, breathable atmosphere. The food chain had to be present and self-sustaining. How can an organism grow and develop if there is no suitable food source for it as well as the more complex organism around it? That food had to be present before life occurred and also multi-tiered as far as size and nutritional complexity. A leaf isn’t very beneficial to a single celled organism, likewise a group of plankton isn’t very helpful to a land animal.
Water itself, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water. If there was no water present on Earth, then life as we see it today would not be possible.

(3) Physics are fine-tuned for life

The laws of physics are not only constant, they are finely balanced on a knife’s edge between functional or not. Any slight variable change would make life impossible. The question then comes, where and how did these laws come into being? Again, evolutionists believe this all happened by chance. Not only did matter, elements, and life itself collect and form into vastly complex organisms, but the laws of physics formed into a balanced, complex system on its own as well! Oh, and it had to happen before life formed, might I remind you. You can’t have life form if gravity hasn’t made up its mind on how strong it wants to be. It would make a terrible mess if that sun wasn’t so stable or those molecular bonds just wouldn’t hold together. Strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, and even time itself had to not only be present but constant, functional and stable.

[davidm]

Well... I'm convinced.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well... I'm convinced.

It's a miracle!

[Giles]

On the question of "Earth is fine-tuned for life": we know that there must be billions of planets in the universe, and most are probably not capable of supporting life. But consider the much smaller number of planets where life has started and organisms have evolved to the point of considering the philosophical question of whether their planet is "fine-tuned for life": of course, any such planet must be "fine-tuned", since if it weren't, there wouldn't be sentient beings on it thinking about the question.

[Der Trihs]

All of those arguments have been shot full of holes repeatedly.

Originally Posted by supermegaman

How can an organism grow and develop if there is no suitable food source for it as well as the more complex organism around it?

By directly consuming minerals, and organics created by inorganic processes. Such creatures exist even now. That particular bit of "fine tuning" is the result of life, not its cause.

[DMC]

Has anyone ever noticed how perfectly a banana fits into a vagina? I bet it looks fascinating! Do you think they have an exhibit on that topic here?

Oh, and Jason, I'm not sure the mods like it when you shill for your articles hosted on your site, while pretending to have stumbled upon it. I'm not a mod, so feel free to ignore me.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by DMC

Has anyone ever noticed how perfectly a banana fits into a vagina? I bet it looks fascinating! Do you think they have an exhibit on that topic here?

I have it on good authority that there is extensive research on just such a topic archived on the web. For science.

[Napier]

Originally Posted by DMC

Has anyone ever noticed how perfectly a banana fits into a vagina? I bet it looks fascinating! Do you think they have an exhibit on that topic here?

Oh, and Jason, I'm not sure the mods like it when you shill for your articles hosted on your site, while pretending to have stumbled upon it. I'm not a mod, so feel free to ignore me.

How do you know who supermegaman is, and that the linked site is his?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by supermegaman

this looked fascinating!

No, it doesn't.
(And not that there's much point as you've cited an apologist website which uses the term "evolutionists", thereby attempting to equate science with religion and in the same breath admitting that something can be discounted if it's religious.)

1)"Irreducible Complexity" is a basic God of the Gaps style argument, it's been falsified numerous times, and each time the IC proponents just try to kick the can a bit further down the road. "Okay... so we know how flagella, the eye, and many other structures evolved, but here's one you haven't totally explained (yet). Thus, God did it! Beat that, suckers!"

2) Earth is not "fined tuned" for anything, at all. In fact, the Oxygen Revolution exterminated a huge number of creatures living on the planet at the time. In point of fact, and to steal a quote, what you are doing is seeing a puddle and remarking in wonder that, wow, it must have been Created since look how the water fits perfectly into the contours and crevices of the hole that it's in! Evolution proceeded such that life changed to be relative-best-fits for the niches it found itself in. No more remarkable, at its base, than water filling in a hole.

3) And no, it's the same thing for physics although you have at least (seemingly accidentally) stumbled upon the Anthropic Principle. Your cite is also bullshit. No, time is most certainly not "constant". Even a high school student should be well aware of Time Dilatation. Moreover there are extreme problems with our current state of knowledge. Try applying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to a black hole. Good luck. Nor has anybody claimed that things just fit together "by chance". The quest for a ToE revolves around finding the underlying mathematics which make the universe work.

I'm not going to read any more since the first 3 are obviously awful, but you can try to defend them if you want. I don't think that the Teeming Millions have savaged a poorly constructed Creationist argument in many a moon.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by supermegaman

this looked fascinating! http://www.christiansentry.com/top-t...s-of-creation/

This is not fascinating; it is silly.

Everything in there has already been debunked by genuine science. None of these claims are actually scientific, in nature--they are attempts to use (badly formed) rhetoric to make points with people who are not scientifically educated.

Sorry.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

This is not fascinating; it is silly.

Everything in there has already been debunked by genuine science. None of these claims are actually scientific, in nature--they are attempts to use (badly formed) rhetoric to make points with people who are not scientifically educated.

Sorry.

How dare you question a superior being.

[Ibn Warraq]

This part nearly made me spit water on my monitor.

(5) Dinosaurs and the abrupt appearance in the fossil record

The oldest fossils for any creature found were already fully-formed and complex. They seemingly appeared out of nowhere, just suddenly, dinosaurs! There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. No gradual growth of lizards into behemoths or fish with legs and lungs. Just… dinosaurs. Bam! And not just dinosaurs, birds, fauna, fish, just suddenly appearing out of seemingly nowhere and into the fossil record. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air.

What is more astounding concerning the fossil record is what has been recently discovered. Human footprints intersected by dinosaur tracks in the same fossil! This alone completely destroys the evolutionary concept of hundreds of millions of years of progression. Humans, not Neanderthals, walked with dinosaurs. In July 2000, archaeologist Alvis Delk found a startling pair of footprints that evolutionists say is impossible. A human track intersected by a dinosaur track! Details can be found here
Want more proof? Carvings in stone found in ten-foot columns at the Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple, created in 1186 show a walking Stegosaurus. Ancient Sumatrans produced multiple pieces of art depicting long tailed, long necked creatures with a headcrest. Chinese artifacts, especially the Late Eastern Zhou Sauropod Ornamental box, show ornamental characters resembling a Brachiosaur. Artifacts from the pre-Greek civilization of Calabria, which is over 3,000 years old, show terracotta statues of Stegosaurs. Remember, dinosaur fossils were not discovered until the 1820’s in Europe. So how did all of these ancient civilizations from across the globe know what a dinosaur looked like, flesh and all?

[njtt]

"Physics" has become plural. It's a miracle!

[DMC]

I'll start buying into this creation nonsense, but only if you protect me from the New World Order that the same site warned me about. I'm skeered.

The New World Order, or N.W.O., is a political and economic control system that has spread across the globe. It is controlled by different organizations such as the Trilatteral Commission, Illuminati, the United Nations, Bilderberg, CFR, Skull and Bones and also central banks in key nations such as the United States, France and Great Britain.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by supermegaman

The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap

But a mousetrap with several pieces missing will function perfectly as a paperclip, for example. Moreover, if one smears gum arabic onto a mousetrap it will catch mice, even if all the parts except for the back board are missing.

IOW a mousetrap is not in any sense irreducably complex.

What good is a circulatory system without a heart?

Am I missing something here? A circulatory system without a heart circulates nutrients. That is what it is good for.

An eye without a brain to interpret the signals?

Well my friend, jellyfish have eyes, but they do not have a brain of any sort to interpret the signals.

I guess that means that God fucked up. Right?

What good is a half-formed wing?

Why don't you look at the thousands of organism that have half formed wings. Organisms such as beetles that use their half-formed wings as sheild, or ostriches that use them as displays.

Once again, the actual existence of all these cretaures with half-formed wings must mean that God fucked up.

Not much of god, is he?

Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive organs need to exist at the same time and be fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place?

Ahh, no.

Once again, there are millions of species that do not have matching male and female reproductive organs. Many of them lack reproductive organs altogether.

Once again, the actual existence of all these creatures without matching male and female reproductive organs must mean that God fucked up.

This is a pretty crapsack god that you are worshipping.

Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.

Not even remotely true. You might be able to stretch it to say that it eliminates anything that is detrimental, which is almost exactly the opposite of what you just wrote.

. How does an organism make itself advance into a more complex form?

It doesn't. Individual organism either live or die. Evolution doesn't produce advancement. Just change

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Blake

. . . Am I missing something here? A circulatory system without a heart circulates nutrients. That is what it is good for. . . .

And...there are invertebrates with circulatory systems and no hearts.

(I loved my old bio textbook, where the author wrote about one, where the blood gooshed from one end of the critter to the other, and then back, "...like the characters in a Marx Brothers movie.")

[GIGObuster]

One just have to look at the debunking of the first item and one can see there is no need to continue with the others.

From the great NOVA show: Intelligent Design on Trial

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ign-trial.html

One has to start with the one that came with that unscientific "irreducible complexity" term:

MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): Yes, they have. And if you advance to the next slide...

In 1998, a man named David DeRosier wrote an article in the journal Cell, which is a very prestigious scientific journal, entitled "The Turn of the Screw, The Bacterial Flagellar Motor." David DeRosier is a professor of biology at Brandeis University, in Massachusetts, and has worked on the bacterial flagellar motor for most of his career. In that article, he makes the statement, "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human." So David DeRosier also recognizes that the structure of the flagellum appears designed.

The makers of the documentary then did go to the horse's mouth and the professor reported on how clueless Behe was on reading what he reported in the past:

DAVID DEROSIER (Brandeis University): What I wrote was, "This is a machine that looks like it was designed by a human." But that doesn't mean that it was designed, that is the product of intelligent design. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution.

NARRATOR: Using an electron microscope, DeRosier produces ghostly pictures like this one, revealing the inner workings of what's been called the world's most efficient motor.

DAVID DEROSIER: This is the drive shaft. This transmits this torque generated by the motor that would then turn the propeller, which would push the bacterial cell through the fluid.

NARRATOR: Michael Behe has argued that the flagellum could not have evolved, since its parts have no function for natural selection to act on until they are fully assembled.

But evidence that refutes Behe's claim of irreducible complexity comes from a tiny syringe that injects poison, found in some of the nastiest of all bacteria.

DAVID DEROSIER: This is a structure found, for example, in Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague. Look at the similarities. Now, this structure doesn't rotate, but it still has to extend this structure, which is equivalent to the rod, the driveshaft here. It has to extend that, because it needs this little channel. It's like, sort of like a syringe. So the virulence factors that are made inside the cell, which is down here, can be exported, pushed up into this hole and exported out through this long, kind of, needle, perhaps into a cell in your body or mine, and thereby create misery.

NARRATOR: And it turns out the two structures look similar for a reason. The syringe on the right is made of a subset of the very same protein types found in the base of the flagellum on the left, though the syringe is missing proteins found in the motor and, therefore, can't produce rotary motion. It functions perfectly as an apparatus for transmitting disease.

DAVID DEROSIER: So if we think about what it means to be irreducibly complex, the argument is that if you take away even one of these proteins, that the structure cannot function. And yet here is a structure that functions, that is missing several of the proteins, and yet here it is, a working, viable organelle of the bacterium. So indeed, the structure is not, in that sense, irreducibly complex.

What is worse is that Behe and others were not taken seriously at all by the scientists and experts on the matter, and nothing new has come from that idea, it is baloney that has its sale date expired many times over already.

http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/node/42

Where exactly can I find this controversy again?
...

The best reason not to teach the "origins controversy" is that it simply is nowhere to be found. Genuine scientific controversies -- the important and useful ones -- take up a huge volume of space in the scientific literature. Even the controversies sparked by wrong ideas can be tracked as they generate discussion among the members of the scientific community. If no-one is talking about it, it's not controversial.

And no-one in the scientific literature is talking about "irreducible complexity" or "complex specified information". A recent search on "irreducible complexity" in the Science Citation Index yielded seven instances of papers using this term (two of these were direct responses from Behe to criticism of his work.) For comparison, the term "face on mars" yielded three papers discussing the proposition that an advanced Martian civilization had built edifices with human features.

It's clear that the "seminal" ID works have all peaked in their citation impact. They're not just not ready for prime-time, they're past their sell-by date.

What this means is that if there is to be a scientific "origins controversy," it will not be able to depend on these texts already written. That is to say, the founding text of a scientific "origins controversy" has not yet been written.

Which makes "teaching the controversy" a difficult proposition.

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by supermegaman

this looked fascinating!

So did the feces I excreted this morning. The astonishing shades and contours. Surely the work of God!

[FinnAgain]

Good grief... I clicked through to the link and the 'proofs' actually somehow manage to get worse.

4) There is no such thing as "the Law of Biogenesis", at least not as you've presented it. Pasteur said that fully formed organisms cannot arise from nothing. But we have a very good idea of how abiogenesis may occur. I'd advise you to look up information on proteanacious microspheres, for example.

5) The Flintstones was not a documentary. No, seriously.
There is no actual doubt that humans and dinosaurs were separated by a span of time that's large even in terms of geological time. To say nothing of the fact that not only do we have transitional fossils, but we also have pre-dinosaur fossils. This is also not in dispute and even bastions of the Liberal Atheist agenda have reported on examples.

6) A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The 2nd law only applies to a closed system. And on the whole, the amount of free energy in the universe is indeed decreasing. But life can quite aptly be described as negative entropy. Just like your freezer can make ice, so too can certain systems locally counteract entropy. But just like your freezer, there is always a net increase in entropy overall.

7) Yes, mutations can and do create new information. No, information is not only the result of intelligence, that's simply fiction.

8) This is just another God of the Gaps style dodge, and the more we discover about cognitive neurology, the more we are learning exactly how humans go about constructing what we know of as "awareness". I'd recommend you read The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat.

9) There are many solid answers for the development of language and languages, as well as evolutionary benefits to population groups from having distinct grammar, syntax, pronunciation and vocabulary. Nor is language truly unique to humans. Language exists along a continuum, and other animals have and use their own methods. While they do not engage in Time Binding in the way that humans do, nor do they (appear to) have the ability to work in abstractions as humans do, your argument is about as rational as declaring that since prions do not exhibit the amount of biological complexity as protists, that protists must have been Created.

10) Now you're just reaching, having abandoned any pretense of scientific accuracy. Even ignoring the fact that many "prophecies" were written after the fact, or were vague enough that they could apply to multiple events, or did not come to pass at all, that still would not prove Creation. There is no functional way to tell that the Oracle of Delphi's "prophecies" and ancient Jewish "prophets" got their magic from the same or different sources. Even if we accepted that prophecy was real, there's no reason to think that it's not Apollo still messing around with us.

[chacoguy]

Your finger will fit inside your nose, but not your ear; can't explain that!

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by chacoguy

Your finger will fit inside your nose, but not your ear; can't explain that!

Finger goes in, snot goes out. Never a miscommunication!

[njtt]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

To say nothing of the fact that not only do we have transitional fossils, but we also have pre-dinosaur fossils. This is also not in dispute and even bastions of the Liberal Atheist agenda have reported on examples.

Since when is Fox News a bastion of the Liberal Atheist agenda?

[FinnAgain]

What sound does a fighter jet make when it goes over your head at mach 3?

[Der Trihs]

Hmmm. One post at 7:09 PM; Last Activity at 7:09 PM. I rather suspect that this is the only post we'll see from this guy.

[elucidator]

He had to go, his planet needs him.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by elucidator

He had to go, his planet needs him.

"NOTE: Supermegaman died on the way to his home planet"

[Gorsnak]

What about the tides, though? Tide goes in; tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

[FinnAgain]

Duh, Poseidon.

[XT]

Not that I expect to see the OP come back in to 'debate' his or her amazing 'proofs', but in the immortal (paraphrased) words of Inigo Montoya 'Proofs? I dinna thin' that word means what you thin' it means, kimosabe'.

-XT

[njtt]

I don't know. The sound of a better joke than that would be, perhaps.

[FinnAgain]

At least you're beginning to understand that it was a joke. progress is being made.
Be that as it may, your knowledge of the intricacies of sarcasm and your ability to graciously admit that you were whooshed are truly respectable.
Impressive, even.

Well I'm impressed.

[Gagundathar]

If the OP ever deigns to return to this hive of villainy, what do you want to bet that we are all accused of not being open-minded enough and that we should explore the controversy.

No takers?

Come on, y'all. Don't be fraidy-cats.

[GIGObuster]

Thing is, the OP claimed that these are scientific proofs, but as pointed out already, the "controversy" they claim that lives among the scientists is in reality as dead as the Dodo.

[FinnAgain]

That's because of the Liberal Atheist agenda, GIGO. Which njtt was kind enough to point out is not actually evinced by Fox News, contrary to popular belief.

[Voyager]

By the way, examples of reducibly complex mousetraps can be found here.
I haven't tried it, but I wonder if searching for "biggest pack of lies on the web" would get you to the site posted in the OP.

[FinnAgain]

To be fair, I found numerous errors, mistakes and simple boneheaded bits of willful ignorance in the list, but I believe that the only lie was the Flintstones bit. Did I miss something?

[Der Trihs]

Googling various phrases from the OP, it appears that people have been copy-and-pasting this nonsense word-for-word since at least 2008.

[Windsong]

Heh heh heh... this should be real intah-restin!! Or have they witnessed you in rare form??

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

If the OP ever deigns to return to this hive of villainy, what do you want to bet that we are all accused of not being open-minded enough and that we should explore the controversy.

No takers?

Come on, y'all. Don't be fraidy-cats.

[Gagundathar]

Originally Posted by Windsong

Heh heh heh... this should be real intah-restin!! Or have they witnessed you in rare form??

I was obviously wrong about the assumption that he was a 'seagull'.
However, he has played true to form for your average garden-variety YEC.

So predictable.

You have to wonder if this guy has children and if they are as ill-trained in standard scientific principles as he is. Tennessee isn't known for outstanding public schools. He may very well be home-indoctrinating (oops I mean home-schooling) the brood.
That is a big thing around these parts.

[Windsong]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

I was obviously wrong about the assumption that he was a 'seagull'.
However, he has played true to form for your average garden-variety YEC.

So predictable.

You have to wonder if this guy has children and if they are as ill-trained in standard scientific principles as he is. Tennessee isn't known for outstanding public schools. He may very well be home-indoctrinating (oops I mean home-schooling) the brood.
That is a big thing around these parts.

There is a professor who teaches at one of the universities in Florida... James Lett: he wrote "A Field Guide to Critical Inquiry". He is also the author of Lett's FiLCHeRS Rule (Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency). Here's the link if you haven't already read or bookmarked it...

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...ical_thinking/

[FinnAgain]

Do you mean to tell me that the OP's meme has found a method of replication and is, perhaps, being slightly modified depending on relatively successful variations that then achieve a place of relative prominence in the memesphere and are in turn copy-pasted more often via driveby guest postings?

[Mangetout]

Natural rock arches are irreducibly complex, therefore they must have been intelligently carved by hand.

[Mijin]

I love how it's the top ten.
Just how many times has Creationism been scientifically proven, in total?

[Mangetout]

I only counted three.

[gamerunknown]

The half of a wing concept was actually addressed in the Origin of Species. These claims were stillborn.

[Nars Glinley]

I'm with the OP. It is foolish to think that mousetraps just sprang into existence.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by supermegaman

this looked fascinating! http://www.christiansentry.com/top-t...s-of-creation/

here's the first three.

They aren't fascinating. They are strawmen and appeals to ignorance.

Let's look at this one:

(3) Physics are fine-tuned for life

The laws of physics are not only constant, they are finely balanced on a knife’s edge between functional or not. Any slight variable change would make life impossible. The question then comes, where and how did these laws come into being? Again, evolutionists believe this all happened by chance. Not only did matter, elements, and life itself collect and form into vastly complex organisms, but the laws of physics formed into a balanced, complex system on its own as well! Oh, and it had to happen before life formed, might I remind you. You can’t have life form if gravity hasn’t made up its mind on how strong it wants to be. It would make a terrible mess if that sun wasn’t so stable or those molecular bonds just wouldn’t hold together. Strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, and even time itself had to not only be present but constant, functional and stable.

In this one the author mistakenly thinks that all people who support a biological theory about speciation have the same opinion on a cosmological matter.

[supermegaman]

oh, I'm open to debate. I find it interesting that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a creator. Probability, my fiends. (friends) Your "theory", (which it still is) of evolution requires an astronomical amount of things lining itself up into neat little rows in order to work.

The sun has to be the right type, it has to be the correct distance away. The earth has to spin the correct speed, it has to have water, oxygen, have a magnetic field, that magnetic field has to be the correct strength, it has to have a moon, that moon must be the correct distance from the earth. There must be trees, plants, some sort of food source for whatever life springs forth and it must be there before that life gets there. Where did those seeds come from? That magical comet or asteroid planted them, right? On and on and on, conditions had to line up perfectly, no, PERFECTLY, in order for life to even be POSSIBLE, let alone probable and abundant and varied. If you believe all of that happened on its own, we'll, we're just the luckiest folks living in the whole wide universe! I'm going to play the lottery!

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by supermegaman

oh, I'm open to debate. I find it interesting that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a creator. Probability, my fiends. (friends) Your "theory", (which it still is) of evolution requires an astronomical amount of things lining itself up into neat little rows in order to work.

Someone who doesn't even know what the word "theory" means when it come to science really shouldn't attempt to debate the subject in question.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by supermegaman

If you believe all of that happened on its own, we'll, we're just the luckiest folks living in the whole wide universe!

The places where it didn't happen, didn't have life.

On the other hand, if humans spontaneously appeared on trillions of different planets, and mostly just immediately choked to death, THEN we'd be extremely lucky to be created on the fully-oxygenated earth. Needless to say, the real universe doesn't work that way.