im at school right now and im on my phone, but when i get home i believe i have answers for you guys.
and just so i leave you with something, i want to respond about why i have proof about God.
lets say you have pieces of a watch in a shoe box. now lets say you shake it for 10 minutes. will you have a functioning watch when you stop? nope. now shake it for 50 billion years, will you have a functioning watch? nope.
now imagine that with the universe. do you think something so complex and orederly just happened? logic says that it is impossible.
if you asked someone to prove that a building had a builder what would they say? well it wouldnt just build itself right?
correct, if you placed all the parts neccesart for a building in a pile, would a building just appear? no.
every building has a builder.
now imagine this,
billionas of years ago something happened and a liquid was made, then something else happened and aluminum molecules formed. something else happened and it formed into a cylinder. then liquid went into the cylinder and then it got topped off by more aluminum. then 50 years ago something else happened and some red got slapped on it and a label, expiration date, and nutritional facts. and i want you to believe this. that would be an insult to your intellect if i wanted you to believe this. but you believe something so infinately complex like the universe just happened. everything working together the way it does just happened? not logical. only a creator could have done it.
ill write more when i get home, my phone needs a break.
Last night I was a little obnoxious and aggressive since I didn't have much patience, but now that I'm coming to my senses I need to make some things clearer here.
First of all, a more accurate analogy of evolution would have it to where each time a few pieces of the watch came together it saved that larger piece and continued the process. That is, things build up in increments, not in one giant leap. Now were some of those increments complex? Oh yes. But there was a lot of time for these things to happen, and an unimaginable amount of variations that could have but probably never did occur. Imagine there was some sort of part that is so improbable that it would virtually never emerge from evolution, well...we simply wouldn't see it. However there are many things that can happen, and reasonably one of these things would happen within the given time. Macroevolution can be somewhat thought of as a larger microevolution. Microevolution is considerably faster paced because the organisms reproduce a lot more and have shorter life spans. If you imagined for a second that you were a Space Giant and you were watching the earth you might see lots of little furry organisms zipping and zapping about over your relativistic sense of time. To you these would be microscopic organisms that reproduced and had super short life spans, compared to your life span of millions of years. The only difference here would be the time it would take. Lots of changes can occur in microevolution within merely years, and lots can happen in macroevolution of periods thousands and millions of years.
But why are changes so drastic sometimes? Imagine this, we have Organism A which is nearly perfectly adapted to Environment A. There isn't much to be improved in this ideal balance between nature and adaption. However say suddenly a large quantity of some sort of fruit can destroyed by an invasion of pests. Suddenly there are not enough resources for our species to survive. Most likely the species that are better at collecting fruit in the new competitive envionrment will prevail. Another advantage would be a small size, if you are smaller then you need to eat less to survive. Etc etc. Evolution in this new hazardous enviornment would occur a lot faster than in the peaceful environment.
The universe is a whole other discussion, but I'll just point out that logic doesn't say it is impossible. Logic is a far more strict system of thought than that, and to even begin to say something is impossible you would have to define much better what exactly it is you are talking about. Also the definitions will have to be related to the reasoning or else it will end up being random. Intuitive, perhaps, but logically impossible? You're very far from that. There are other major problems but I think that is the most important thing.
The last paragraph is basically what we call Straw Man, which is basically when you stretch out your opponent's position inaccurately and with the intent of making it look absurd. It doesn't really need to be replied to but I'm trying to make things more clear so I will comment on some things. First of all, we know how we got heavier elements. It happened through nuclear fusion in stars. When a star would supernova we would get a lot of these heavier elements shot out across space. If you want more information about this entire process, and also the formation of our solar system, go look around.
There is another major problem, and that is that you are using your own incredulity as a crutch. Since you do not know what we think occurred you are not really in the position to start attacking us for things we supposedly don't know. A real scientist tries to understand something the best he can to find the real serious problem with it. You seem to be trying not to understand what we think happened so that you can have a wider selection of "serious problems" because you don't know that all these serious problems have serious answers. When you hear about nuclear fusion, don't just stop and say, "But how did we get the Earth from that point?" and pretend it's a serious problem. Just keep finding the answers to the questions. If there ever is a point where you really can't find an answer, and no one seems to have an answer, and it's a very serious question that demands very serious attention, *and* you have a theory that answers all the questions plus these other unanswered fundamental questions, then maybe you have something to be sharing.
