About this BIG BANG thing

[Detector]

While I do believe in evolution, at the micro level, I do not believe ALL life on earth evolved from a single cell as taught by science. I have a problem with an unproved theory taught as fact. The only reason this theory is presented as fact is because its the only one science choose to teach.

I think its makes a whole lot more sense that the explanation for our variety of species and lack of evidence that one species ever evolved to another points in another direction.

I believe life on earth has an extraterrestrial past. Hitchhikers on asteroids and meteors or intentional seeding is a whole other debate, but it makes far more sense and does debunk the theory of evolution.

Why haven't we found evidence of one species evolving to another? because it never happened.

I think evolution should be taught as a fact to explain how a species can evolve and adapt to its environment on a micro level, but look elsewhere to explain how we arrived here.

Now, if we were to find that our beginning on earth was the results of intentional seeding, then intelligent design would fit quite nicely.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by booger

Just how in the world did the Big Bang leave the earth in the exact position as it was needed. just 2 degrees either closer or further from the sun would do the earth in by boiling or freezing. If we evolved, the way they say we did, why are their still Chimps and Apes still running around. Heck, with this recking, we have alot more cousins than we know.

Because the invisible man in the sky made it that way.

[Flying Dutchman]

So Detector you believe that all the different life forms, the gazillions that have existed since the begining of time, were and are completely unrelated to one another? Let's see, we have had cell phones for how many years, and life on this planet existed for how many years, and you wonder why we have not discovered the answers yet? We may never discover them, but until we do then you have to go with that which makes the most, and scientific, sense.

[Detector]

We may never discover them, but until we do then you have to go with that which makes the most, and scientific, sense.

I couldn't agree more. I just see far more "scientific sense" in the theory that life forms on earth vary because they came from different sources rather than one. Don't forget that species such as plants have little in common with with us other than we both live on the same planet. It makes far more sense that the beginning of plant life on earth came from a different source than the idea lightning struck a mud puddle and all life was born.

If memory serves me correct, as far back in the beginning as science has taken us, even the simplest life forms had the DNA building blocks to become what they are today. But plants, for example, have no building blocks to ever become anything other than a plant. For this reason it seems rather useless to say just because we haven't found the plant-to-animal mutation that it does exist because simpler mutations exist.

I just think the theory of evolution as far as ALL life on earth has a common beginning is seriously scientifically flawed. No examples exist or could scientifically exist if you take into consideration the lack of the necessary building blocks. To believe these differencing life forms probably came from different sources seems a more realistic theory.

And with this in mind, would it be so hard to believe the reason we haven't found any examples would be because its more likely than not they came from different sources and there is no such thing? Different species of animals that is.

Then there is that pesky scientifically testable probability thing. The probability that something still exists after a millennium of searching. Sooner or later science will have to make the call that if it exists we would have found it by now. Until then I guess Bigfoot lives.