Did it for the lulz

Lol I love how they use the Bible as fact. Hilarious.

 

Bible is just a book.
So if I believe harry potter is fact, that doesn't make it true, now does it?

 

Evolution IS all wrong.

The theory of biogenesis (which is part of the evolutionary theory) has been proved to be the only way that life can be produced. It has yet to be proven wrong. Now the theory of spontaneous generation HAS been proven wrong.

You could argue that Miller and Urey's experiments with the primordial soup theory were "proof" that spontaneous generation COULD have happened, but you have to keep in mind that they only created amino acids which are NOT capable of reproducing OR spawning new life.

Which means there is only one explanation; there had to be an outside force acting upon the earth; eg. a god of some sort.

 

Random drift can lead amino acids to form a simple replicating protein. That = primitive DNA.

 

God is a product of human imagination, it is like saying "if science is wrong, then there must be a pink unicorn in the sky!" Plus you don't know how many possible explanations there are. The only ones you know of are evolution or God, there may be many more which we do not know yet.

 

Then again, what is the use of DNA if there are no cells for it to code for? I know that it is believed viruses, which don't have a host and just have a carrier are believed to be the first organisms on earth.. but how could a virus reproduce if if had no cells to reproduce IN? Also, how would the cells organelles be formed?

 

Human evolution is the part of biological evolution concerning the emergence of homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominans, great apes and placental mammals. It is the subject of a broad scientific inquiry that seeks to understand and describe how this change occurred. The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, most notably physical anthropology, linguistics and genetics.

The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2 million years ago in Africa. Several species of Homo evolved, including Homo erectus, which spread to Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which spread to Europe. Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. Most scientists favor the view that modern humans evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and Neanderthals. Others view modern humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population.

Starting with habilis, humans have used stone tools of increasing sophistication. Starting about 50,000 years ago, human technology and culture began to change more rapidly.

 

Oh lawdy, you so smart massa!

Nobody thought about ripping from wikipedia befo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Seriously though, shut the fuck up if you can't post anything that is your own. You could have at least put it on your own words.

 

A self-replicating protein doesn't require a cell to replicate. All it does is drift around, replicating itself with other fragments of amino acids.

Organelles are formed by random chance. Almost everything in a cell is composed of proteins, or sacs (random mutations in the DNA, and swallowing other cells).

 

Eh, even if the organic and biological things could somehow be explained. There is still no explanation for non living matter. If you say the big bang; who created it?

 

Just showing evidence that evolution might be real, i believe it isnt fake.

 

No, you ripped material. There is a difference between making a point, and taking what somebody else said.

 

No one knows who or what created it, and if you say God, do you have any proof?

 

They already have been explained.

Matter necessarily cannot be created (nor destroyed). The universe has always existed.

 

If what you say is true, and there is no proof either way, then it has to go to logic. What makes more sense? An existing being creating all of this, or it just "being" there?

 

Actually, the universe existing for eternity makes more sense. The universe is the totality of all existence. To create it, existence could not exist. Therefore, whatever would have created it would not have existed.

 

It's all a matter of opinion, to be honest..

 

It's logic. Existence can never be created, for to create something, you have to exist!