Are we living on the planet of the apes?

Well, a distant cousin to the baboons - the chimpanzee and the gorilla are far closer cousins. That is what the evidence seems to say.But you say that you are basing your belief on conviction as opposed to evidence? Or, perhaps, you can reconcile them by accepting evolution as God's method of creation? Your post is a little unclear on that.

Gosh, Crashfrog, prettier than:

quote:

---

I believe that in order to rationally understand my take, you would have to consider that the events I am referring to would have had had to occur in the other 6 dimensions; where one of our seconds may actually take years to come into fruition Who Knows?

---

Jagz Beach, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, and I'm don't think you are, either. Those extra 6 dimenstions, if they exist, are not a different place where time goes at a different speed. If this string theory is correct, then we all, right now, live in 10 dimensions. It is just that the other six are so "short" that we just can't notice them.And what is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to reconcile Genesis with the scientific theory of evolution?

quote:

---

Could that have actually allowed for billions of our earth years to have occured, before the actual conclusion of the first earthday when God according to scripture removed the clouds that kept the light from penetrating through?

---

Except that photosynthesizing plants (and blue-green algae) have existed for billions of years, so there had to have been sunlight penetrating well before that.

In what way?I have a theory: all human beings start off as a single cell at conception, and then grow into full grown adults. Does the second law of thermodynamics debunk my "embryo theory"?

quote:

---

The cell is programmed to divide and yadda yadda to get to the form of a man.

---

How does this enable an embryo to violate the second law of thermodynamics? The second law of thermodynamics is, for macroscopic systems like cells and organisms, an absolute law. We know of no exception to this. So, my question to you is: when the embryo grows from a single cell to a grown adult, how does it avoid violating the second law?Now I will tell you that it does not violate the second law. What is the second law (your proposed statement of it is incorrect, as Crashfrog has already pointed out)? How can it be correctly applied to a growing embryo? Why can't the correct application to the growing embryo be applied to an evolving population of organisms?Once you admit that you do not know what the second law of thermodynamics is or how to correctly apply it to biology, there are links that I and others can supply to you that will help you understand it better.

If this is supposed to be a reply to me, then you haven't answered my questions, merely repeated your original statement. Read my questions again.Also, your posts have a tendency to be...incoherent. Please try to write in complete sentences, and try to remember your high school lessons where they tried to teach you how to write a proper paragraph. You are simply not expressing your thoughts very well, and, to be frank, you are coming across as very confused.

quote:

---

nor that illegible for that matter so deal with it.

---

Sorry, but you are that illegible. I am being honest when I say that I don't quite understand what you are trying to say at times, and I am honest when I say that I don't see how you have answered my questions.

I apologize if my last post seem unreasonably harsh. It's hard to tell sometimes when someone is having some difficulty in understanding or whether they are intentionally being difficult.To reply to your earlier post: the second law of thermodynamics makes no mention of complexity or order. Here is the second law of thermodynamics as taught in an upper level college physics course:It is not possible to create a process whose sole result is the extraction of heat energy from a single reservoir and converting it into work.See, no mention of order or complexity. The statement that you have made is a simplified version of the second law that is not entirely accurate.By the way, for those interested, here is gallo's Thermodynamics Test. In it are two other statements of the second law that are exactly equivalent to the one that I just gave. Can you find them?