Morahman7vnNo2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Mike plays Bass, Sarah played Flute (Back in the day). Yup pretty much sums it up right there.

seraphimbass (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

What replenishes the sun? Where did that sun come from? Our energy(atmosphere) is not in equilibrium....it looks like you flipped through a Science Journal right before you wrote that garbage down man. No offense, but page 37? lol, j/k

seraphimbass (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I never said you didn't know what you were talking about. Evolution persay doesn't mention beginnings if you work around it, but it really does. You're turning into a politician on me here. I've yet to see any "proof" of evolution that is pure science.

Gooseman2k2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Now on to the second part. The entropy argument, There are two ways which you could use entropy so ill adress them both. Firstly when it comes to the loss of energy the sun repleneshis our energy to a state of equilibrium according to our atmosphere. Second when entropy is used as a term for the tendency for chaos to arise from order in closed systems, remeber we are NOT a closed system. and to a smaller extent entropy is still a factor in natural selection.

Gooseman2k2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

do you really think i dont know what im talking about? You cant be serious! Evolution says NOTHING about the origion of life, it explains the DIVERSITY of life. At the present the evidence for evolution (not the origin of life) is incontravertable. The time for radical doubt of evolution has long since passed (1950's). When you tell someone like me to "study for yourself" you come across as (for lack of a better word) dumb...

seraphimbass (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I haven't mentioned any conspiracy at all. You keep bringing it up though, you don't even know where I stand. I'm just trying to ask you to keep a subjective mind. The experts are wrong all the time. Evolution is not plausible at all lol. In fact, it is the most irrational occurence that could have happened. Nothing exploding, then evolving into complex being despite entropy.....stop arguing with me and study for yourself.

Gooseman2k2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

im afraid you have bought into religious propoganda. You make it seem like theirs a real conspiracy going on when no biologists would say there is. Its a sad day when someone says evolution is not "scientifically" tested. Not ONLY is it scientifically tested BUT also quite Axiomatically plausible.and for the record i know 2 Molecular Genetecists and a General Genetecist.You should investigate the difference between Acceptance and belief as well. youll find only rational people accept.

seraphimbass (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I find it completely ignorant to claim that biology could make no gains without evolution...lol. Don't be so close minded. That is not what science is about. Theories have to be tested and you guys seem afraid to test "scientifically".

seraphimbass (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Look at your assumptions once more. "ANY molecular geneticist"???? Do you even know any? If so, you don't know them all. What is the evidence of evolution without faith? You have faith in a Big Bang that cannot be proven, faith in fossils that have never been found to exist. You're right about the superior alternative-and I think that is what scares evolutionists into keeping their theory.

Gooseman2k2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

To me its almost absurd you would say something like that. The endgame for this argument is of course in APPLICATION. If you talk to ANY molecular geneticist, General Biologist or Taxonomist. They would uniformly tell you that without the theory of evolution there would be no way to make any practical applications within their field. And infact without evolution biology would cease to make gains.