And I apologize for getting frustrated, dorkus. I agree with pretty much everything in your last post.

Would I agree that one or both of two contrary belief systems is wrong? Usually, but sometimes it depends on the belief - just as not all courtroom questions have yes/no answers.

Since we're talking about the origin of species, then there are both absolutes and matters of interpretation. Either we split off from apes or we didn't, and that was either about 7 million years ago or it wasn't. Either we evolved into what we are now or we just appeared this way. And so on.

What's not absolute is how it's all driven. Darwin explains a lot of what *happens*, but of course he can't explain why it happens or why anything bothers to exist in the first place. That's what a lot of religion attempts to explain, but none of us will ever really know why...which is where your open mind comes into play.

Stephen Hawkins doesn't have the answers to questions we're unlikely to ever be able to answer, but he sure knows how to pose the questions more clearly than you or I.

Hopi, Stephen Hawkins is good at explaining the thinking about that question. He believes that while time began with the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, time also doesn't really have a boundary, and it only points in the thermodynamic direction in which we experience it in one sense.

You have to read him to sort of understand it, though, because a) I only get the surface of it, and b) I can't explain what I do understand in a post here - it's too complicated.

The logical questions - What did the universe look like before the Big Bang and How long was it in that state of zero mass - make no sense. There was no time before time began!

Well Nick, now I feel a group hug coming on...

To TLIX: I know we've been talking about you while you're in the room, and I feel kind of bad about that. I want to encourage you to speak up (if you want) because I don't want to presume to have you all summed up. I've taken a look at the website you posted, and I think that there are some valid points to consider... and I'm considering. If you're interested in where my opinion and yours diverges, you may want to read a book called The Source by John Clayton. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1582291...=books&v=glance It nicely fits a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint with an older world perspective. I buy a good amount of it.

Still waiting on Audiorigami to get me some more material...

what about da-voo, and destiny. I didn't read the last two pages but it occurs to me if you don't know what i'm talking about than it must be false. Evolution does not take into account rational thought. look at an animal and tell me they decide between things other than fight or flight. Evolution is for simple minds who battle their contradictions and don't understand themselves. evolution is there for anybody who can't stand alone.

Which reminds me: what about unintelligent design?

maberi

I think you meant Stephen Hawking there Nick Copernicus.You might be a little more believable if you at least get the suckers name right.

where is the symbol of man. Where does spontaneous events end up? can one survive a ruthless world where animals dictate and minds disinagrate. Is it really an evolution and are we really as slow as our bodies?

Hawking. Sorry.

Sorry about the wait dorkus.

We're really getting into "the ****" now.

1. There are no sure answers, but here are some
possibilities which have empirical evidence backing them up--more than I can say for ID, which has made no predictions, nor has it produced any evidence in favor of its cause:

Often-repeated experiments show prebiotic molecules formed from ancient-Earth-like conditions

Prebiotic molecules found in outer space

Keep in mind that "cells" are not the only life forms. Viruses do not technically have cells.

2. Jellyfish are technically colonies of single cells. Interesting, no? Here's a link which gives various reasons why
single-celled organisms may have evolved into multicellular organisms.

3. That is actually an awesome question. It turns out that sexual reproduction, because it creates many more novel combinations of genes, is superior to asexual reproduction, and as such would have occurred through natural selection (and has succeeded spendidly, much to our enjoyment).

I am way too tired to go on about number 4. Hopefully this'll give you food for thought--which is really my goal. I'm not anti-anything. I just feel that given time, and facts, anyone can learn the truth about the natural miracle of life.