MustKnow

did you even bother to read my links? I did go through several FAQ and they were all shit i already know nothing revolutinary. btw its not windows its MAC.

i did read your articles you guys posted, before i read the debunk of evolution then again after i read the debunk because i wanted to make sure i was getting good intel.

shouldnt had told me to do more research. Just read some cool articles one of which you guys failed to tell me was the mutations are repaired. here are some articles i read. Also wanted to add once i get some more pond water and figure out how to increase the populate im going to hit them with some x-rays and such to see if i can get an mutations. Would be pretty cool to see even if they all die. kind of big http: //www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html http://www.gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html Repairing mutations Do evolutionists admit defeat? Never! They temporarily set aside natural selection, saying all mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in the population, perhaps in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races. This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist. As pointed out earlier, we do not find new parts under construction in living creatures or fossils, so it obviously does not happen. Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could. Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate. This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes. Survival of the barely functional? We do not find this either because cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within it's variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations. These include: * A proofreading system that catches almost all errors * A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system * Photoreactivation (light repair) * Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase * Base excision repair * Nucleotide excision repair * Double-strand DNA break repair * Recombination repair * Error-prone bypass25

what am i missing then?

its relevant because it implies someone was there to observer it. I know what the theories of natural selection and evolution are. You are taking current today data and implying it to something that happened almost a billion years ago. there is no prove anywhere that it was business as usual that long ago.

I just read what i thought was an interesting article, it had to do with Quantum physics and the measurement of a particle. I dont know what they called it but it boiled down to a particle that was different at any given point until it was observed. What the person was purposing was how did anything come to exist if there was no one around to observer the particle. I never ignored natural selection. that is easily seen by observation, but that doesn't prove a fruit fly turned into a dragon fly, nor does mutations. The view on mutation and natural selection is equivalent to saying if you get a 1 trillion piece puzzle mix it up place it in a box and shake it until it is a complete puzzle is bogus. And is essentially what you are going to have to do to prove it to the rest of the world once and for all.

i dunno know what they were i just found them in some pond water. They were just single cells that had a bunch of fudge-jell-lens.

I promised myself not to say anything about evolution anymore but i am besides myself. God created Vs the lottery. So now in the world of physics and creation of life it boils down to either some kind of god made it or we are just that lucky? Maybe its just me but i see a pattern, those you reject God instead embrace luck?

how do you increase the growth of microbes?

I have been studying microbiology on my own for the past year got a microscope and a few books. However i have very little knowledge when it comes to implementing anything. For instances how do i get a virus or find one, how do i encourage the growth of microbes. I had some pond water i wanted to try to increase the population of microbes to better examine then because they were few and hard to follow with my scope. Anyone know of a cheap place to buy lab gear?

The reason i wont accept evolution is because the information just isnt good enough for me. The same with ID and creationism some parts sound good yet other parts dont seem as good. It might make more sense if i said i accept some parts of creationism, but not all of it, yet i dont accept any of evolution. Do i acknowledge mutations happen and can be benefical yes, it has been proven, but what i dont believe is these mutation lead to the existence of all life and their design. As it has been said here many times life is complex. Life is too deliberate to be a series of random mutations. Its one thing if there is a mutation after something has been engineered and designed its another thing when a cell formed at random. Why is it in most of the physics community they say the laws of physics have been built to support life and if one law was off it would be in possible thus they must have been wrote that way for a reason. Yet this biggest miracle happened at random? This is what i see when i take a step back and examine this world and universe we live in, there is a system in place functions, like in software, everything that exist even in space perform some kind of function has an intent. Is this hard to prove nope, look out your window, the plants produce oxygen and take in our carbon, a system built one on top of another for each other. Seems pretty deliberate doesn't it? If you never have i would recommend you build something complex of your own and see how it goes. Its on thing to theorizes its another thing to have and understanding of designing.

your right, i dont know why i ever get involve with these discussions its as bad as arguing religion or politics. Everyone thinks they are "The One" with the answer. Its hard to get one to see another point of view with so much pride in the way. Like i said i for one will not credit my exists to a theory of a bunch of random chemicals that some how produced this complex being who can understand the mysteries of the universe, know love, and understand the value of life. LONG LIVE THE SOUP!

i made a few more replys in this thread, with regards to evolutions. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=489148#post489148 I thought facts are the same as the truth. If I understand correctly you got your data on one hand your evidence then you prove your case. Maybe i am making it too straight forward. I think the grand canyon is a result of a huge amount of water not a small slow creek. I head down to the grand canyon to test my theory make my observations gather data then present my side. I think man has an innate idea of God he is born with. I examine the different cultures i find all cultures have some form of God they worship and i present the data, all cultures of man have some form of God, so they must be born with it.

apparently it wasnt good enough. just pulled this out of my text book. A mutation happens roughly once every 1 billion base pairs of DNA that is copied. Most mutations result in negative consequences for a cell, a change in the Gene results in a change in protein such that the protein doesnt function well or not at all, which leads to a loss to the cell or death. Only rarely does it cause a cell to preform better. So you got 1 out of 1 billion for a mutation to take place, which will most likely result in a negative consequence. Only rarely does it benefit the cell, and even still there is no guarantee it will be passed on to its off spring, and if the mutation doesn't increase the odds of you getting laid then its not going to get the extra shot to be passed down. Now to me that seems far fetched to put all my hopes and dreams that this is how i came to be. I think we all can agree life is more complex then the lottery. and thus this is why you will never get passed the "odds" the whole core of the theory is based on some pretty big odds, that a simple protein built itself into DNA from the ground up then created the first cell which somehow lead to us complex and foolish being. Life is too dilberate to happen. Every living thing that does exist does so with a purpose and intend in the grand scheme of things. The lion is build to hunt, the fish to swim, the bird to fly. A car for the road a plane for the sky, and a boat for the sea. All designed with an oblivious intent. If you read this and still thing me and the rest of society are wrong then i think you need to relook yourself and check are you looking for the truth, or your own agenda.

i cant recall all the details, but in the human body when a virus enters the cell, before the cell dies it releases a chemical that goes out to warn the other cells to produce an acid, so when the virus goes to attack them their RNA they inject is killed by the acid. I read a study where some doctors tried to make a pill that could cause the human cells to always produce that acid but they werent having much success.

lol, i just watched a movie where some guy made penecillian from moldy food he got out of the trash then he put it in water let it soak, poured it into a cup add some sugar and drank it lol.

you hit the nail on the head. He just showed the odds based on matieral in soap bubbles what would the odds be with something that is more complex. I see this in every evolution argument "odds". Id like to see someone prove the odds arent really that much for evolution to take place. Hell, the odds of a mutation are really high, thats why they will never win the odds debate. I think the idea evolution came about from wrong interpretations of the data based on a person perception. I say its half full you say half empty. Thats why this debate will never end. One side is going to eventually have to present data that is undeniable.

I dont know if you have ever looked inside of a computer program or built one but if you did i think you would see a microbe is very much like a program. I personally will never accept evolution, i think what happened here is some body found out about mutations then took it too far. Just about all mutations result in death, deformation, or simple nothing. Not to mention if you did have a successful mutation that benefited you doesn't go to say your children will inherit it.

microbiology? or math books. my math is real bad been out of high school so i forgot most of it. Been trying to relearn it all and calculus.

not entirly machines. I can decide to destory myself, or where i want to go or eat. A microbe machine works strictly on chemistry. A microbe seems to me that it works much more like a computer program and if statements. Using magnetic pulls and chemistry to cause its actions to take place. Its hard to explain. The best way i can explain what i am seeing to another person is by using computer programs as examples.

I want to make a career in the science field with either physics or microbiology, the problem is im years away from getting any kind of degree, can't work full time and go to school full time, not to mention im not sure what school i need to go to for a doctors. The big colleges are hours from where i live. Also does any know of any good science text books, or math?

What is the difference between physics and quantum physics? Are there any jobs in the physics field? Know of any good books? I have been studying microbiology and physics on my own for the past year since i cannt afford to go to school full time and the absents of the school that offer majors in that field.

how do they know this is true? If it changes on observation? and how does it know its being observed?

I dont see how you could say they are alive, they are machines they follow a set of rules and preform the tasks within their dna, it seems more like their DNA acts as their brain.

I dont see how creationism or Id fail to become theories. Some guy says he thinks some form of God created everything, gathers information on the brilliant engineering marvels of science writes up a paper and presents his point of view. Same as Darwin, Darwin wrote about his observations then presented his point of views. I think one of the biggest problem with creationism besides any wholes it might have which Darwinism has too, is people hate religion and thus associate creationism with it. I don't want to get into a big discussion over which is right, discussing the origins of life is as almost as bad as discussing politics or religion. Do you know of any good science books worth reading? I prefer to read books which leave their views of darwin, or creationism at the door and just focus on the science at hand. Not some bullshit about how after billions of years a microbe grow a brain, from some proteins.