Why does evolutionary science seem to be

So hell bent on dispelling the reality of a creator?
Can we define dispassionate to mean that there is no hope of heaven; and we are going to do our damndest prove it?

Evolution, can it be verified, falsified, or repeated? For what it is worth, this is probably the most intimate question I have ever had the honor of being presented with in my life. I think this is a task we should look to with all due diligence, where there is a will there is a way.How can we deny the probability of a creator of such a wondrous creation? Rather than deny, how do we pursue seeking this creator, while not be religious? But then again isn't science in a sense, religious?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-09-2004]

Wow how sweet. Yet why do I have this urge to hurl? My eyes are not wide shut.Please feel free to explain to me, for I am ignorant of this evolution process that has allowed the bonds of heredity to be broken throughout the process of your evolution theory to allow existence of the simple cell to evolve to the 100 trillion celled being that is man.Though there are many species of a finch, a finch is still a finch, and so to is man still a man though there are yellow, red, and brown ones. There are limits to the theory, limits which I cannot deny, nor close my eyes too. I can by no means look to evolution as reality, though its theory is a part of it.Simple question how do we take a single cell and allow it to be transformed to this 100 trillion cell being while yet escaping the many bounds of heredity, and the laws of the universe? To say that the process from this one cell to this trillion cell being was a result of mutations to me is a laugh.My understanding is that everything is on the verge of decay and that there are boundaries of our heredity cycle. Between the boundaries, and laws; how in the world does this simple cell overcome such enormous obstacles over all these millions of years to boot? I'm ROFLMAO... Is evolutionary science deliberately taking a species ability to adapt out of context?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-09-2004]

First of all know and understand that Miracles are supernatural in origin, or acts of God if you will hehe. Conception as wonderous as it may seem or appear to be is by no means a supernatural process, I promise you it is quiet a natural process that.First of all, know and understand that all cells are programmed. A simple cell is not programmed to divide into a trillioned cell being such as a man. To say that it has evolved to this status in few hundred million years is a joke, especially when you consider the obstacles. People have been asking me about the boundaries... Why act so smart yet so ignorant is beyond me. Could another name for RNA be a fence to divide us in our individual genetic locations? Some of you are really smart, please help me understand why a woman having sex with a horse doesn't get pregnant, even though she is ovulating. There's more to the theory evolution than what one can learn in biology books or journals..."All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganization, disarrangement and less complexity.".[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-10-2004]

You know I think it is funny how different species can copulate. Yet to me defining a species that can copulate and conceive of one another is kind of like lying. How do we define species that can not copulate or produce offspring of one another? You’d think that’s what species meansTo me it's weird how though finches come in so many different species, yet they can still interbreed with eachother. I don't like the methods we use to break down species. Why we could use the same methods on man, well we do in a sense with the term race, but whats keeping science from breaking man down like they have the finch?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-10-2004][This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-10-2004]

Is science not at a point to determine the barriers with which a species is not able to breed with another. I think that is where you start. Keep the species as they are but isolate them in catagories to show where the boundries lie in the reproductive process. Is that too much to ask?

Whats typical is getting a watered down reply to my request. Why can't we catagorize creatures who are able to reproduce with each other with those who can't. Genetic barriers exist. Now answer the question how hard would it be to define the different species that exist within those barriers. What is the big deal? Is that too much to ask? Does it hurt evolutionary science to pull this off?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-11-2004]

Do we not know and understand that all men and women evolved from one woman and woman? And that we are not kin to the Neanderthal. Now does this fact you stipulate to result from something that can be tested? Verified? Repeated? Falsified?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-11-2004]

We can sit here and theororize the issue until we are blue in the face. That’s not what I am here to do. I want answers not theories. IMO Theories can act more like questions to facts that exist, than they do answers. We are taking pieces of realities puzzle, and are using theories to arrange them to suit the will of our imagination. Thats just not good enough for me. Whats wrong with wanting to see the edges of realities pieces? I prefer to keep the facts seperate from the theories.This place reminds me of a football message board. Forget about about what team we are all on. Let's keep our eye on the ball, and the ball in this game is the facts.[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-12-2004]

Stop Jacking me around with your smoke and mirror act.I don't know what your definition of 'Kin' is but mine is 'of the same nature, or of the same kind'. So your wrong there for saying no, for Neanderthal is not the same kind. And your also wrong about saying no redarding one woman when by your own admission you practivcally said the same exact thing but used the term female rather than woman. Why you had to throw that she wasn't the only woman is beyond me as if it even had any baering on the argument. How do we know if a theory is right or wrong? We don't, until it is considered a fact there will always be a question that's why we call it science. Let's keep things in perspective; if an answer can neither be verified right or wrong, then is not that answer more of a question than an answer? Granted I will aknowledge the reality of theories to be explanations, but an answer hardly. To me theories are just another question to be answered. I have to keep things in their proper perspective regarding keeping the scientific method sound. Therefore to me a theory is not an answer, but rather a question or an explanation that can not be regarded as fact. I am after the facts. ROFLMAO get a grip what the what the what.

Paul If you haven't figured it out yet I could care a less about theories, whether they be of creation or evolution I am only after the facts. What do the facts say? One woman; enough said. Why must you go on a speculative population rant? What facts are you basing your assumptions on? Just the facts...[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-12-2004]

Do all woman possess the same line? How do we know for a fact that these lines die out? And if so how long does it take lines to die out? What is there life time? If we came from a population and the life time was approxiamately the same for each line why would there be just one?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-12-2004]

So lines will live on as long as the female is able to procreated, otherwise they can not die, fine. So Jack you are assuming that we came from a population? Where is your proof. Facts state that there is only one female line.Dude,
Call them kin all you want, but wild cats and domestic cats are a far cry from humans that where clothes and build fires, opposed to comparing them to extinct apes. Your comparing apples to oranges. Look at the biological difference between us and an orangutan, or gold and led.
Though the biological make up is virtually identical, the difference makes all the difference in the world. You may call it kin but you’re watering a definition down to be virtually meaningless IMO. I might as well be Kin to water at this rate.

Well let's forget about extinct apes how about what our history books say...Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.Could this indeed be the Neadrethal?

How do we know for sure they were not giants?