Evolution of plant life...?

[rockv12]

Curious on how evolutionists explain the origin of plant life on earth.  How does natural selection fit into the evolution of a tree?  Or a blade of grass?  When did algae on the shores of the ocean turn into a flower or a tree?  And why?  How do we see different speciation of trees?  How did the cactus evolve?  What's the purpose of thorns?  How did the apple tree evolve?  Sure is nice to eat all the tasty fruit that evolution created for us.

[ParkingPlaces]

You're not at all curious. If you were, you'd already know the answers.

[rockv12]

You're not at all curious. If you were, you'd already know the answers.

And another response that answers nothing.  I'm serious here.  Anybody?

[jeremy0]

You're not at all curious. If you were, you'd already know the answers.

Indeed.  Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn.  Want to know something even more amazing?  Saturn protects us from asteroids.  This means that without a huge planet like saturn, we would have been nailed by numerous huge asteroids all the time.  Apophus (Sp?) is supposed to nail us in 2039, for example.  It's as big as the state of Missouri.  We *think* it will hit in the pacific, thereby not causing as much damage.  However, we should actually hope it nails another planet first..

[jeremy0]

You're not at all curious. If you were, you'd already know the answers.

And another response that answers nothing.  I'm serious here.  Anybody?

It goes something like this - for a long, long time, chemistry collided in water until the conditions were just right to form a biological organism - bacteria.  The bacteria was able to replicate and feed on other chemistry, thereby 'living'.  As it multiplied, dna modified slightly.  This rose to other patterns of biological life.  The patterns continuing to change rose to plant life in the ocean, along with fish.  Eventually, it spread to land (bacteria surviving on land as well).  The fact is, everything on earth came from one form of bacteria, millions of years ago.  DNA only progresses, so we never see a 'reversal' or 'de-evolution', because you can only go forward in time, and dna only gets more advanced.  However, that doesn't mean that past versions of that dna (chimpanzees, for example) are not suited to survive, and therefore they still exist today; perfectly suitable for their environment still... 

That's as simple as I can make it for you.

[rockv12]

Indeed.  Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn. 

Neat.  Still no answer regarding the planet Earth.

[rockv12]

It goes something like this - for a long, long time, chemistry collided in water until the conditions were just right to form a biological organism - bacteria.  The bacteria was able to replicate and feed on other chemistry, thereby 'living'.  As it multiplied, dna modified slightly.  This rose to other patterns of biological life.  The patterns continuing to change rose to plant life in the ocean, along with fish.  Eventually, it spread to land (bacteria surviving on land as well).  The fact is, everything on earth came from one form of bacteria, millions of years ago.  DNA only progresses, so we never see a 'reversal' or 'de-evolution', because you can only go forward in time, and dna only gets more advanced.  However, that doesn't mean that past versions of that dna (chimpanzees, for example) are not suited to survive, and therefore they still exist today; perfectly suitable for their environment still... 

That's as simple as I can make it for you.

I appreciate the response.  An actual answer.  Thanks.  And this is proven, how?  I could come up with a scenario like that and throw the word "God" into a sentence or two, and I'd be called an idiot.  So where is the proof that it happened that way?  I mean there's more to life than four legged creatures.

[jeremy0]

I appreciate the response.  An actual answer.  Thanks.  And this is proven, how?  I could come up with a scenario like that and throw the word "God" into a sentence or two, and I'd be called an idiot.  So where is the proof that it happened that way?  I mean there's more to life than four legged creatures.

No, I wouldn't call you an idiot for throwing the word 'God' out there.  I would call you one if you would say that God was the reason for bacteria-only life on the watery moon surrounding Saturn...
The proof is that we can re-create it (or are trying) in a lab.  We can grow bacteria.  We can modify genetics of plant life.  (what do you think our corn and soy beans are now?)  We can modify the makeup of viruses.  etc.  How much proof do you need?  The fact is, dna (chromosomes - remember biology) is the makeup of who we are.  It can be modified.  God isn't doing that modification...

[jeremy0]

You're not at all curious. If you were, you'd already know the answers.

I would like to re-iterate.. this person isn't doing any form of scientific study at all...

[rockv12]

The proof is that we can re-create it (or are trying) in a lab.  We can grow bacteria. 

And bacteria is NOT the expansive plant life we see today. And a lab is a creation of intelligent beings, not what we say years ago on earth.... Again, how did it evolve?  Why did it evolve?  And why?  This is evolution...you need to be able to answer the why's and how's. 

[jeremy0]

Look - I know what you are doing.  You don't understand why there are 'gaps' in the evolutionary process.  For example - why do we see different types of bird instead of every possible variation of bird?
The reason things evolve is because that is the natural order of things.  Just like time progresses, evolution progresses.  It's a naturally occurring phenomina.  Asking why things evolve is irrelevant.  It evolves simply because it can.  Nothing further.
Asking how it evolved is a simple question - for example, we have mapped the dna from humans and apes all the way back to a single 'mother' chimpanzee (or something to that nature - spare me for having to look it up on the internet the news article that came out just a few months ago..)
Asking these questions - the answers are already out there.  Saying that intelligent design happened because things are complex is a simple answer to a complex problem.  Evolution is a complex answer to a complex problem - one you clearly don't understand.  I would start on wikipedia.  Then I would do your own google searches. 
We are having the exact same argument that Darwin had with one of his fellows - the fellow carved something and said - 'it just came into being by chance'.  And that was supposedly his proof that something so complex can happen 'just by chance'.  But it did, in fact, happen because the conditions were just right.  Consider this planet an isotopic miracle - just like in Tron Legacy....

[rockv12]

The reason things evolve is because that is the natural order of things.  Just like time progresses, evolution progresses.  It's a naturally occurring phenomina.  Asking why things evolve is irrelevant.  It evolves simply because it can.  Nothing further.

I just got a "warning" from admin for "trolling".  What is that?  I posted a topic regarding evolution, that's all. 

Anyway,  the natural order of things is to evolve?  Again, where is this evidence of how plant life evolved?  Can't a guy ask a simple question on here without getting warned by admin for "trolling"?

[jeremy0]

It's because I'm having to go back and forth to unrelated topics to discuss with you something that we should only have been discussing on this one thread..

In that sense, you and I are 'trolling'.  Stop it.  Since you clearly don't even understand what I'm trying to explain to you, just don't post anymore.  I'm tired of trying to help you understand..

[rockv12]

It's because I'm having to go back and forth to unrelated topics to discuss with you something that we should only have been discussing on this one thread..

In that sense, you and I are 'trolling'.  Stop it.  Since you clearly don't even understand what I'm trying to explain to you, just don't post anymore.  I'm tired of trying to help you understand..

The Probability of the Big Bang thread is all over the place!!  Nobody is talking about the Big Bang...yet we all continue to post in there.  Did everybody get "warnings"?  Or just me?

Ok, so back to plant life.  That was my topic, let's stay on it.  How did plant life evolve?  Still no answer.

[rockv12]

JeremyO gave a pretty good response above.  Thanks so much.  But it proves nothing.  "this happened and then that happened" is NOT proof that anything happened.

[jeremy0]

Stop talking to me.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants 

Start reading, dummy.

[jaimehlers]

I suspect you got a warning for trolling because it's eminently obvious that you aren't actually interested in anything but the question, "how doesn't this prove God?"

Every single one of the questions you asked in the other thread were based on that premise, and it's starting off the same here.  Same song, which verse are we on now?  When you repeat yourself like that, it's basically trolling - you're showing that you aren't interested in seriously listening to anything we have to say, you're just trying to get us to "acknowledge" that your belief is valid.  In other words, you're trolling us to try to get us to respond in the way you want us to (you may not think of it that way, but that is how you're coming across).

You aren't going to resolve the problems between what your beliefs say and what evolution says by trying to fit evolution into your belief framework and disregarding what doesn't fit.  If your belief framework doesn't work to explain something except by saying "it just does" (which your admissions that it "blows your mind" show), then you need to have the moral courage to seriously ask yourself if it isn't your belief system that's at fault.  The real problem here is that you're trying to treat your religious belief as if it works like science, where it's something you can literally prove true, and then presenting it to others to validate.  But religious beliefs are primarily metaphorical, not literal.  Genesis isn't an explanation that is supported by evidence and can stand up to criticism, it's a way to try to metaphorically explain why there is such a variety of plant and animal life despite the fact that nobody was there to actually see it happen.

[One Above All]

First there were photosynthetic bacteria, then there was the first mass extinction event, then they repopulated, then they formed colonies (the first "algae"), then they became multicellular beings, then they adapted to live on land, and so on.

This is a simplistic version, of course. My guess is that you'll do what jaimehlers says you do, or just argue from personal stupidity incredulity.

[EV]

Ok, so back to plant life.  That was my topic, let's stay on it.  How did plant life evolve?  Still no answer.

Having read this, it's quite obvious that you are just trying to 'catch out the silly Atheists'. I'll have a go at explaining it to you.

You are trying to say that as there is no 'proof' that evolution happened, it does not exist. We need to look at this proof.

Detailed records have been made throughout the study of plants and their evolution. You just have to use that magic wealth of information that God provided for you. It's called Google.

Lucifer has given a good general answer in the post above. A good more specific example backing up what he said is in England, where it's visible to see this- I've noticed evolution taking place on a smaller scale here. The alteration in our climate over the last 15 years has been such that the year is colder in the longer winters, and hotter in the shorter summers. There was a brief period around 2006 where I noted a lack of flowering plants that year, presumably the less hardy plants had died out because the harsher winter had killed them.
The survivors propagated and their seed was successful in becoming more dominant, and the more trait to be able to withstand greater temperatures was passed on. This year, there are lots more daffodils and bluebells than I remember last year, and the weather hit 0 degrees (C) last week, about 4 days after being 25 degrees. It shows that the weather extremes are now not killing off the plants.

A theists alternative explanation would be that God sent the bad weather to kill the evil daffodils, so the new ones could rise from the ashes of the previous daffodil civilisation.

It's really quite obvious to see which is actually the sensible explanation for the changes in plant population...

[Emily]

I think this pathetic song by ICP explains how you view things:


 
People can give you proof until they are blue in the fingers but you wont accept what they offer. All you will keep on doing is asking 'how is this proof' blah, blah, blah. It's like, have you ever been around a kid why keeps on asking questions, and someone gives an answer and that kid keeps on saying, 'Why?'. Well, that's you right there. Keep on asking why, or in this case, how. The question can keep on going and going even though an acceptable answer[1] has already been given. No answer that anyone gives you, whether is be how plants evolved, or how the big bang happened, will be acceptable to you because you are going to keep on asking 'how is this proof' blah, blah, blah.

Then you even through in this little fun what-appears-to-be factoid that you seem to hold so dear and close.

  And God is similar.  But with God, we have proof in creation that shows design.  We have proof in the Bible that shows God's work on earth.

You do understand that your 'holy' book's explanation of how the universe and life (including plant life) is just one big assumption by primitive-minded men, right. Well, of course you don't, but the first two chapters in genesis seems good enough for you to answer how everything came about.

 I mean, come on! Genesis says god created the heavens and the earth. Genesis chapter one verse one talks about the heavens and the earth being created on the same day. This seems to stick with you (even though science has shown that the Earth's formation was about 10 billion years after the formation of the universe. Hubble Ultra Deep Field[2] has taken pictures of the furthest and oldest stars and universes, based on Edwin Hubble's law he formulated after he observed red shift that is called, well... Hubble's Law, (which is based heavily on general relativity)

Your question: How did the universe form? Your answer: God created the heavens and the earth, blah, blah, blah.
Your question to us: How did the universe form and how did plants evolve? Our answer: Well the big bang says, blah, blah, blah.

Your reply: HOW DID THIS HAPPEN!, THIS ISN'T PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are you allowed to give such a simplistic answer that is based on a less-than mediocre holy book, but when people give an answer based on scientific research and formulas you dismiss what they have to say as "not proof at all".

Yet you claim the bible has all the answers and that our universe 'shows design by god' or some shit. Well, with the exception that out galaxy is on a collision path with Andromeda[3] , and our atmosphere is constantly fighting off big ass asteroids (and we might get blasted by one in 2036[4], and not to mention earth already has been blasted by space debris (K-2 extinction[5] ), the fact the eventually the sun will slowly die down and consume our Solar System one planet at a time[6], I guess the universe does show design.

I mean, there are pretty trees to look at, nice smelling flowers, and yummy fruit and veggies to eat. I guess this is proof of design. But when looking at the grand scheme of the universe, to quote George Carlin

"if this is the best god can do, I am not impress. Results (war, disease, death, destruction, hunger, etc) like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude."[7]

Seriously, dude. Is this the best you got. Asking all these 'how' and 'why' questions, and when given specific scientific explanations you claim "How is this proof!" What more do you want? You've been given proof but you keep on shifting the goal posts. You're being dishonest in your questions.

And this may be off topic but it really isn't. You've got a few threads going on that all are asking the same question, only worded differently. And your replies in those threads makes it appear that you think trumped the members giving you reasonable and scientific explanations. How is this proof? How is that proof? Blah, blah, blah. Well to be blunt if you are not willing to accept the answers that are given to you why the fuck did you ask those questions? You don't want to discuss anything. You just want to be intellectually dishonest. And you wonder why you are being called a troll. 

BTW: I have a question for you. How do magnets work? Or even better, how does gravity work? I hold the popular theory of intelligent falling regarding gravity.[8] Can you refute that theory, or if not, support it? I mean, it's a reasonable theory, isn't is? Thanks.

-Em.

1.	acceptable by those without a child's mind
2.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field
3.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision
4.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
5.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event
6.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle
7.	http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm
8.	http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

[pianodwarf]

Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn

Ouch.  No, we haven't.  At this point, science is speculating that the conditions capable of supporting life might exist there, but there are too many unknowns at this point to be certain about those conditions, and we most definitely have not discovered life there.  If we had, it would arguably be the biggest news story in the history of the human race, and news outlets would be blasting it all over the place.

Please don't give ammunition to the creationists by giving out such painful misinformation.

[rockv12]

Your question: How did the universe form? Your answer: God created the heavens and the earth, blah, blah, blah.
Your question to us: How did the universe form and how did plants evolve? Our answer: Well the big bang says, blah, blah, blah.

Your reply: HOW DID THIS HAPPEN!, THIS ISN'T PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are you allowed to give such a simplistic answer that is based on a less-than mediocre holy book, but when people give an answer based on scientific research and formulas you dismiss what they have to say as "not proof at all".

I get the same thing.  I say there is a God. Someone says that I'm an idiot because "where did God come from"?  But they have no answer for the same question, "where did everything come from?"

Still no answer to how plant life evolved?  And evolution has been "proven" according to most in here? 

And "NO", evolutionists aren't able to give simple, "I don't know" or "Well, it's just that way" answers.  That is the reason they hate creationists.  They need proof and logic. So give me some proof and logic about how plant life evolved.  I'm waiting...

[rockv12]

Having read this, it's quite obvious that you are just trying to 'catch out the silly Atheists'. I'll have a go at explaining it to you.

You are trying to say that as there is no 'proof' that evolution happened, it does not exist. We need to look at this proof.

Detailed records have been made throughout the study of plants and their evolution. You just have to use that magic wealth of information that God provided for you. It's called Google.

No, I'm simply asking a question and never getting an answer.  You don't think I've researched it?  Nobody knows...that's the problem.  There is theories and nice, little scenarios, but no proof of how it occured or why?   Seems like nobody in here has even given it a bit of thought since I get no answers, just remarks about "googling it".  And  "hearty" plants living through the winter?  That's the proof that plants evolved?  I''m sorry...but you're gonna have to do better than that to convince me that creationism is silly.

[HAL]

No, I'm simply asking a question and never getting an answer.

rock,

Let's say I replied to you and said "I don't know how we got here". Are you prepared to explain your ideas of how we got here with the same infinite detail that you expect others to give to you?

How would you answer the question, and remember, you have to provide the same excruciating detail you expect us to give you, and answer innumerable questions of a highly detailed and deep explanatory nature.

Proceed with that as a given and give us your explanation.

[ParkingPlaces]

Sure is nice to eat all the tasty fruit that evolution created for us.

Sure is nice to get poison oak from the plant your god gave to us. Sure is nice to be stung by nettles because made that for us. Sure is great to touch wolfbane and get sick or die. Same with belladonna and water hemlock. Why does eating bracken fern cause cancer?

Here, read this about a common eastern US plant called bloodroot (cut and pasted from Wikipedia):

Sanguinaria canadensis (commonly known as bloodroot). The rhizome contains morphine-like benzylisoquinoline alkaloids, primarily the toxin sanguinarine. Sanguinarine kills animal cells by blocking the action of Na+/K+-ATPase transmembrane proteins. As a result, applying S. canadensis to the skin may destroy tissue and lead to the formation of a large scab, called an eschar. Although applying escharotic agents, including S. canadensis, to the skin is sometimes suggested as a home treatment for skin cancer, these attempts can be severely disfiguring, as well as unsuccessful. Case reports have shown that in such instances tumor has recurred and/or metastasized. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the inclusion of sanguinarine in toothpastes as an antibacterial or anti-plaque agent, although it is believed that this use may cause leukoplakia, a premalignant oral lesion. The safe level of sanguinarine in such products is subject to regulation and debate. S. canadensis extracts have also been promoted by some supplement companies as a treatment or cure for cancer, but the FDA has listed some of these products among its "187 Fake Cancer 'Cures' Consumers Should Avoid". Bloodroot is a popular red natural dye used by Native American artists, especially among southeastern rivercane basketmakers. However in spite of supposed curative properties and historical use by Native Americans as an emetic, due to its toxicity internal use is not advisable (sanguinarine has an LD50 of only 18 mg per kg body weight)

Why would god build that into a plant? Evolution doing this I understand. Because evolution doesn't have a purpose. It only has by-products. Like you and me and hummingbirds. And bloodroot. So plants weren't made specifically to be eaten. Some plants are edible, but bloodroot cares less what happens if something comes along and eats it,. However, via evolution, it put together a nice list of usable chemical processes that happen, just happen, to be hard on critters that eat it. And if people figure out not to eat it, then it is better for the plant because it has fewer enemies.

Better hope that wheat doesn't evolve in that direction.

Evolution is quite capable of creating a large selection of different types of plants. We humans have labeled them species. For every one that we can comfortably eat, there are others that we dare not. Some we eat anyway (red kidney beans, for instance, but you have to throw out the water you soak them in). Evolution explains why there are plants that don't happen to be convenient to have around.

A god does not. Why in the f**k would he make a few plants irritating to some people's skin. Poison oaks and sumacs and ivy's? WTF? Some plants are blatantly dangerous and can't even be touched safely, while others seem just fine until you try eating them. I repeat. WTF. But only if a god is involved.

The whys of plant evolution are exactly the same whys that were described to you regarding animals. You should probably stay away from this subject because plants can't fly so you can't harp on and on about hummingbird flowers and how they fly. That will make it hard for your one track mind.

[jaimehlers]

No, I'm simply asking a question and never getting an answer.  You don't think I've researched it?  Nobody knows...that's the problem.  There is theories and nice, little scenarios, but no proof of how it occured or why?   Seems like nobody in here has even given it a bit of thought since I get no answers, just remarks about "googling it".  And  "hearty" plants living through the winter?  That's the proof that plants evolved?  I''m sorry...but you're gonna have to do better than that to convince me that creationism is silly.

Again, and again, and again, you expect "proof" of evolution.  When people give you evidence, you dismiss it because it isn't "proof".  So, what is proof to you?  If I recall correctly, you think that someone has to have actually witnessed it to count as "proof".  The problem is, eyewitness evidence is notoriously bad.  People don't remember things accurately, they change their memories over time, and they miss key details all the time.  One of the reasons surveillance cameras record their footage is so that there's a record of what actually happened that isn't subject to faulty human memory.  So eyewitness testimony - whether in the Bible or somewhere else - is utterly unreliable to begin with.

To make matters worse, the text of the various books of the Bible were passed down by hand-copying for literally thousands of years.  And hand-copying is just as bad as eyewitness testimony in its own way.  First off, it's difficult and wearying work, prone to error from fatigue.  Second, there's errors that come about from misreading words, especially since you're dealing with someone else's handwriting.  Third, there's always the temptation to edit the text so that it says what the scribe thinks it should have said, so deliberate changes.  So, that happens every single time someone hand-copies something (which says nothing about translating it from one language to another, which is whole different can of worms).  In short, the Bible is not proof of creationism.  I suspect the only reason you truly think it is is because of the God-breathed verse, meaning that God was the ultimate source of the text.  But just because someone wrote that into the text, it doesn't make it true.

One of the biggest problems with claiming that it's God-breathed is that there are so many errors in the Bible, most of which came about due to hand-copying errors, translation errors, and deliberate changes by scribes.  It makes no sense for a divine being to go to the effort to inspire or write the Bible, with the intention of having it be a source of wisdom, but then leave that wisdom to be messed up beyond recognition by the actions of humans.  Especially when the stuff in it is claimed to be necessary for human redemption.  So you have to then either accept that this divine being got it wrong to begin with and had to let people make those changes in order to bring it in line with what the divinity intended from the beginning (which, unless it's dumb as a stump, is equally nonsensical), or you have to accept that it wasn't divinely inspired and thus what's written in the Bible came from human understanding of things, with all that this implies.

To be blunt, you can criticize science all you want, but you can't put the Bible up on some pedestal as "proof" of creationism, because it absolutely is not.  And the various things that you see that say "design!" to you are not "proof" either.  The brain is very good at spotting patterns, whether or not those patterns are meaningful.  Ever watched clouds?  The fact that the clouds look like something is only a trick of perspective combined with mistaken pattern-recognition.  It's the same thing with all these things you like to point at as "proof" of design; you're seeing a pattern and assuming that it's a meaningful pattern that demonstrates design, when in fact it's nothing of the sort.

[EV]

No, I'm simply asking a question and never getting an answer. 

Okay Rocky, I'm trying to be patient and explain this to you. It's quite obvious that you didn't understand my point. I told you that story about the plants living through the winter because you asked for evidence that explains how plants evolved. This story shows small scale population changes. It's things like this that combine over time to form new species that adapt to the new environments presented by a change in time. If God's creation was perfect, it'd never change. There is change in species, so why did God's creations have to change over time? Because he didn't create them. There is your answer.

You don't think I've researched it?  Nobody knows...that's the problem.   

Tell that to the millions of biologists who spend their lives showing that plants evolve by studying fossil records, and analysing DNA + RNA samples left in traces of prehistoric amber to show EMPIRICALLY how the DNA has changed over time.

There is theories and nice, little scenarios, but no proof of how it occured or why? 

Except for the fact that we are here now, and can look at the world and witness it in action. It isn't designed, it follows physical laws.

Seems like nobody in here has even given it a bit of thought since I get no answers, just remarks about "googling it". 

That is because you can find more wisdom through Google than the Bible.

And  "hearty" plants living through the winter?  That's the proof that plants evolved?

HA. This made me laugh.

har·dy
Adjective:   
1. Robust; capable of enduring difficult conditions.
2. (of a plant) Able to survive outside during winter.

Definition of hardy: you didn't know what 'Hardy' means. Don't mean to sound rude, it was just quite a funny misinterpretation of the word.

It was an example to show how plants evolve due to changing environments, since you already didn't like the ideas about us genetically altering food. It's a small snapshot of time, that shows that the theory of evolution works on all scales. This can be applied to Global events, such as the Cretaceous extinction, to show how changes in climate benefit random mutations that allow the more hardy plants to survive. Perfectly relevant, and an adequate facet of the proof that shows Evolution to be true.

   I''m sorry...but you're gonna have to do better than that to convince me that creationism is silly.

How about:

1. God is perfect
2. if something that is perfect changes, then it is no longer perfect.
3. Assume that God Created the Universe
4. God cannot have form, or he would be imperfect. He must be outside the universe, or be the universe.
5. The universe changes.
6. EITHER: God did not create the Universe, God is not perfect or God cannot interfere in the Universe (because he created it, and to interfere in a creation that is perfect as possible would be to alter it, and by definition be to make something imperfect, which is against the nature of God.

Alternately: Snakes, incest, spare ribs and apples. Seriously, it's like reading Aesop's Fables.

I gave this a lot of thought, don't just tell me that I am making no effort.

I'll be happy to debate you on Creationism/Evolution if you want in the Debate room.

[Ambassador Pony]

Indeed.  Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn. 

WTF are you talking about?

[pianodwarf]

Indeed.  Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn. 

WTF are you talking about?

He's making an extremely large and embarrassing science mistake, which I've already corrected him on earlier in the thread.  I really cringed when I saw that.