I know some people will ignore these facts as usual, just make sure you have enough facts before you commet.

>The earth itself is revolving at a speed of 1000 miles per hour at the equator. If it were to revolve at only 100 miles per hour, night and day would increase ten times in duration, plants would be scorched in the day and seedlings would be frozen to death at night.

>If the atmosphere were thinner than at present, millions of meteors which are burned up in the air would fall to earth and cause terrible fires." {Wu, Questions Concerning the Faith , pp. 5-6. See also Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 163}.

>Liquid water, if it exists elsewhere, is rare. Most of the universe consists of flaming gasses or frozen desolation:

>If earth had just a little more water, continents would not extend above sea level.

>Had there been more CO2 earth would probably have remained to hot to host life, much like Venus.

>The most common stars in galaxy are - fainter than the sun and nearly 100 times more numerous - these are uninhabitable for other reasons. Our star is just OK! {Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 51-54, 270}

>Earth is situated at the right distance from the center of our galaxy. Closer to the center, there are too many deadly gamma rays and X-rays. However, a planet too far out from the center of its galaxy would not have a metal core which produces magnetism which is also helpful in protecting earth from harmful radiation. {PeterD. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 28-29}.

>If the moon were closer to the earth the tide would flood all lands even the high mountains. In addition, "Earth's climatic stability is dependent to a large extent on the existence of the Moon." {James Kasting as quoted in Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 266}.

>If the earth were the size of its moon, its gravity would not be strong enough to hold an atmosphere; too large, its gravity would crush us to the ground.

Not only is the proportion of oxygen to the other gasses just right to let us breathe, but also to provide an ozone layer which stops the ultraviolet radiation which would otherwise destroy all life.

>If the ozone layer were too thick, not enough heat would reach the earth, if too thin, ultraviolet rays would penetrate and kill all life.

>If the earth's available oxygen, both in the atmosphere and absorbed in water were much less, animal life on land and in the sea could not exist. If there were much more oxygen, fires would rage out of control.

>While most materials contract when they freeze, water expands by about one-eleventh of its volume. This makes ice float on top of a lake, preventing the lake from freezing all the way through and killing all the fish.

Remember 'natural selection' does not apply here.

Its all the different SPiritual Forces (GODS), that help to bind the workings of this world together.

Incredible.How great thou art oh God.Only deep obscurity would make any right thinking fellow to suggest all these happens by chance.Kudos dear poster.I marvel at your intelligence.A gift of God indeed.I've been following ur posts in anomnity & know for sure that u easily dumbfounded them God haters.I only pray God makes your English better(and mine too).Stay blessed.

This deserves front page above any other.Mods we beg una in Gods name.

This deserves front page above any other.Mods we beg una in God's name.

OP is tinking backwards. The earth is not designed or adapted to support life. Rather its life that has adapted itself to survive in the conditions it finds itself. That is what natural selection does, it allows life to adapt.

We know that there has been life on earth for at least 3.5 billion years. There have been several times during that period that conditions on earth were drastically different than they are at the present. There was a long period where there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. [url=news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming/]There were several periods where the entire surface of the earth was covered in ice, even at the equator.[/url]

Yet, at all times life existed and adapted. If you had lived during those periods you could have argued that trheearth was perfectly designed to support the forms of life that were present at those times.

The earth is what it is. It isn't specially made into accommodate anything. Rather it is life that has adapted itself to survive on earth. And natural selection definitely applies here.

Evil Brain: OP is tinking backwards. The earth is not designed or adapted to support life. Rather its life that has adapted itself to survive in the conditions it finds itself. That is what natural selection does, it allows life to adapt.

We know that there has been life on earth for at least 3.5 billion years. There have been several times during that period that conditions on earth were drastically different than they are at the present. There was a long period where there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. [url=news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming/]There were several periods where the entire surface of the earth was covered in ice, even at the equator.[/url]

Yet, at all times life existed and adapted. If you had lived during those periods you could have argued that trheearth was perfectly designed to support the forms of life that were present at those times.

The earth is what it is. It isn't specially made into accommodate anything. Rather it is life that has adapted itself to survive on earth. And natural selection definitely applies here.

You have said it all. . .

OMG.
How does anyone argue with such kindergarten ignorance?.
These are the kind of baloneys you sell to sunday school children.

It took the earth 4.7 billion years to reach it's current stable orbit. In that period different life species have come and gone. Infact humans have been on the earth for a very small fraction of the time that dinosaurs spent on earth.

It is extremely ignorant to say that most of the universe is full of flaming gases and cold desolation?
How many Earth-like planets have been discovered over the past two years alone?
Am sure that you are not counting.

when the right combination of factors are present, chance events occur that make it possible for other chance events to occur.
That is why it has taken 4.7 billion years to reach where we are.
But ofcourse, you believe that the earth is 6000yrs old, so why I am even wasting my time.

This post is just too silly.
Why is it only in Africa that one finds this type of thinking in this age?

Evil Brain: OP is tinking backwards. The earth is not designed or adapted to support life. Rather its life that has adapted itself to survive in the conditions it finds itself. That is what natural selection does, it allows life to adapt.

We know that there has been life on earth for at least 3.5 billion years. There have been several times during that period that conditions on earth were drastically different than they are at the present. There was a long period where there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. [url=news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming/]There were several periods where the entire surface of the earth was covered in ice, even at the equator.[/url]

Yet, at all times life existed and adapted. If you had lived during those periods you could have argued that the earth was perfectly designed to support the forms of life that were present at those times.

The earth is what it is. It isn't specially made into accommodate anything. Rather it is life that has adapted itself to survive on earth. And natural selection definitely applies here.

@first bold-If not because your name is really affecting you, you would have looked at those points before you spit this rubish.

At fact number one, is it life/natural selection that makes earth to revolve @ 1000 miles/hr? If this figure changes either increasing or decreasing it will affect life and not earth.

@color red- this is the atheist excuse to prove that life started from earth yet they fail three fact about early atmosphere to contain oxygen:
1. "If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start." Michael Denton
2. "Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules"
3. "Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere.

So tell me another lie.

@color green-The period that earth was covered with ice was the period that first atmosphere just formed but because is not strong enough it falls down and cover earth's surface. This is another lie because:
1. If there was no atmosphere nothing can exist on earth in the presence of the Sun.
2. If Sun exist before the earth, earth won't have atmosphere (remember atmosphere form during the cooling and warming effect of the earth) because the temperature of the Sun is higher than that of the earth. "the greater the external pressure, the greater the volume of hot air, at constant temperature"-Boyle's law

@last bold-Nothing like natural selection/life adaptation in all the facts I stated above. According to you life cannot control nature which is the reason of creating this thread, then answer these questions base on my facts:
1. Why the earth have accurate atmospheric thickness?
2. Why the water on earth did not more than the one it will bury continent?
3. Why the CO2 in the earth just accurate?
4. Why the earth is at the right distance form the galaxy......and many more.

I know you can't disprove those facts but because I put LIFE at the title you quickly rest you complain about LIFE.

If earth was not designed those facts cannot be accurate.

Lastly, natural selection doesn't apply in any other thing than LIFE. You can't expect natural seletion to occur in formation of Rocks, water e.t.c

plaetton: OMG.
How does anyone argue with such kindergarten ignorance?.
These are the kind of baloneys you sell to sunday school children.

It took the earth 4.7 billion years to reach it's current stable orbit. In that period different life species have come and gone. Infact humans have been on the earth for a very small fraction of the time that dinosaurs spent on earth.

It is extremely ignorant to say that most of the universe is full of flaming gases and cold desolation?
How many Earth-like planets have been discovered over the past two years alone?
Am sure that you are not counting.

when the right combination of factors are present, chance events occur that make it possible for other chance events to occur.
That is why it has taken 4.7 billion years to reach where we are.
But ofcourse, you believe that the earth is 6000yrs old, so why I am even wasting my time.

This post is just too silly.
Why is it only in Africa that one finds this type of thinking in this age?

I know atheist are the most brilliant in the universe no wonder they keep deluding themself.

An illitrate Moses said atmosphere had formed before sun appeared but the brilliwnt atheist said Sun exist before atmosphere had formed. Now evidence had shown that atmosphere can't form in the presence of sun. Who is more ignorant?

I have sheld more light to your question and your ape-like brother above.

I believe you boycott the thread created by Logicboy03 yesterday "the research that refuted ape-like creature". Keep deluding yourself.

Emusan:

I know atheist are the most brilliant in the universe no wonder they keep deluding themself.

An illitrate Moses said atmosphere had formed before sun appeared but the brilliwnt atheist said Sun exist before atmosphere had formed. Now evidence had shown that atmosphere can't form in the presence of sun. Who is more ignorant?

I have sheld more light to your question and your ape-like brother above.

I believe you boycott the thread created by Logicboy03 yesterday "the research that refuted ape-like creature". Keep deluding yourself.

So your believe the bible when it says that the earth was created before the sun?. . .Which evidence showed that the atmosphere can not form in the presence of the sun? . . .What are you saying?. . .

mazaje:

So your believe the bible when it says that the earth was created before the sun?. . .Which evidence showed that the atmosphere can not form in the presence of the sun? . . .What are you saying?. . .

No I believe in big bang because I quoted from it.

The one I have explained above.

Emusan:

No I believe in big bang because I quoted from it.

The one I have explained above.

So because Micheal Denton lied that if "If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start." means what?. . .Hope you know that Denton has changed his positions many many times. . .

Oxygen is absolutely NOT required for all organisms. Oxygen is not only not required, but is extremely toxic to organisms called obligate anaerobes. Many organisms that are obligate anaerobes are called "sulfate reducers" (mostly bacteria) and use gases containing sulfur in the place of oxygen. . . All plants use CO2 instead of oxygen, if there was no oxygen they would be fine. they just give off oxygen, like how we give off CO2.
From wikipedia. . .

Before photosynthesis evolved, Earth's atmosphere had no free oxygen (O2). Oxygen was first produced by photosynthetic prokaryotic organisms that emitted O2 as a waste product. These organisms lived long before the first build-up of oxygen in the atmosphere,[2] perhaps as early as 3.5 billion years ago. The oxygen they produced would have almost instantly been removed from the atmosphere by weathering of reduced minerals, most notably iron. This 'mass rusting' led to the deposition of banded iron formations. Oxygen only began to persist in the atmosphere in small quantities about 50 million years before the start of the Great Oxygenation Event.[3] This mass oxygenation of the atmosphere resulted in rapid buildup of free oxygen. At current atmospheric rates, today's concentration of oxygen could be produced by photosynthesisers in 2,000 years.[4] Of course, in the absence of plants, photosynthesis was slower in the Precambrian, and the levels of O2 attained were modest (<10% of today's) and probably fluctuated greatly; oxygen may even have disappeared from the atmosphere again around 1,900 million years ago[5] These fluctuations in oxygen had little direct effect on life, with mass extinctions not observed until the appearance of complex life around the start of the Cambrian period, 541 million years ago.[6] The presence of O2 provided life with new opportunities. Aerobic metabolism is more efficient than anaerobic pathways, and the presence of oxygen undoubtedly created new possibilities for life to explore.[7]:214, 586 An atmospheric oxygen level about 2% by volume is necessary to make compounds such as collagens, used by all animals; thus high atmospheric oxygen levels are needed for large life-forms.[8]
Since the beginning of the Cambrian period, O2 levels have fluctuated between 15% and 30% of atmospheric volume.[9] Towards the end of the Carboniferous period (about 300 million years ago) atmospheric O2 levels reached a maximum of 35% by volume,[9] which may have contributed to the large size of insects and amphibians at this time.[8] Whilst human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, have an impact on relative carbon dioxide concentrations, their impact on oxygen levels is less significant.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa!

The earth came before the sun.
With no sun, upon what did the earth revolve? Without the sun, from whence comes light?
From whence comes heat?

Having you witnessed nightfall before?
I doubt it.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

@Mazaje,
Are you actually trying to educate this guy?
You know it's futile.

plaetton: @Mazaje,
Are you actually trying to educate this guy?
You know it's futile.

Some times you just have to try. . .

mazaje:
Some times you just have to try. . .

I can see, so you mean the first primodal germ that life evolve from produce plant's life first before animal's life?
Then when did organism change to plant and plant to animal?

Emusan:

I can see, so you mean the first primodal germ that life evolve from produce plant's life first before animal's life?
Then when did organism change to plant and plant to animal?

The first organisims that came to life according to scientist were unicellular organisms and they did not require oxygen to survive. . . Oxygen was first produced by photosynthetic prokaryotic organisms that emitted O2 as a waste product. photosynthetic prokaryotic are plant like already. . .I don't know when they evoled to animals. . .I was just debunking your claim about life not existing without oxygen. . .Even plants which are living things do not need oxygen. . .

mazaje:
The first organisims that came to life according to scientist were unicellular organisms and they did not require oxygen to survive. . . Oxygen was first produced by photosynthetic prokaryotic organisms that emitted O2 as a waste product. photosynthetic prokaryotic are plant like already. . .I don't know when they evoled to animals. . .I was just debunking your claim about life not existing without oxygen. . .Even plants which are living things do not need oxygen. . .

I agree with you they are unicellular but answer this simple question. Did animal evolve from plant?

Emusan:

I agree with you they are unicellular but answer this simple question. Did animal evolve from plant?

I don't know. . .Am not an evolutionist. . But they said animals evolved from unicellular organisms not plants. . .

Emusan:

I agree with you they are unicellular but answer this simple question. Did animal evolve from plant?

YEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

animal evolve from plant and then the dinosaurs evolve from bacteria while the viruses rose from the white man's lab and ascended into human's organs where it lives today.

okay?

Emusan:

I agree with you they are unicellular but answer this simple question. Did animal evolve from plant?

No animals didn't evolve from plants. I don't know where you are getting this idea from.

Both animals and plants evolved from more primitive ancestors. Most likely, plant-like protozoans first appeared when an ancestor organism fused with a cyanobacteria it was living in symbiosis with to form a photosynthetic eukaryote. The cyanobacteria would then have become an endosymbionte, i.e, the green chloroplasts we see in all plant cells. Multicellular plants then evolved from colony-forming photosynthetic protozoans. (Examples of living organisms at all these stages exist today in case you want to start arguing, so don't bother).

This would explain why chloroplasts have their own DNA and reproduce independently with their own RNA and proteins. It also explains why chloroplast DNA is so much more similar to that of cyanobacteria and eubacteria than it is to the regular plant DNA.

Incidentally the same applies to the mitochondria that exist in each and every eukaryotic cell known. We all have tiny bacteria living inside our cells. And there is no way we can survive without them.

mazaje:

I don't know. . .Am not an evolutionist. . But they said animals evolved from unicellular organisms not plants. . .

You're not an evolutionist yet you know animal evolve from unicellular organisms.

Remember unicellular organism as your claim above shows that they survive through CO2. Then how animal now evolve and survive with oxygen?

Avicenna:

YEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

animal evolve from plant and then the dinosaurs evolve from bacteria while the viruses rose from the white man's lab and ascended into human's organs where it lives today.

okay?

Give me the evidence that support your claim.

See your life Evil brain says NO!

Evil Brain:

No animals didn't evolve from plants. I don't know where you are getting this idea from.

Both animals and plants evolved from more primitive ancestors. Most likely, plant-like protozoans first appeared when an ancestor organism fused with a cyanobacteria it was living in symbiosis with to form a photosynthetic eukaryote. The cyanobacteria would then have become an endosymbionte, i.e, the green chloroplasts we see in all plant cells. Multicellular plants then evolved from colony-forming photosynthetic protozoans. (Examples of living organisms at all these stages exist today in case you want to start arguing, so don't bother).

This would explain why chloroplasts have their own DNA and reproduce independently with their own RNA and proteins. It also explains why chloroplast DNA is so much more similar to that of cyanobacteria and eubacteria than it is to the regular plant DNA.

Incidentally the same applies to the mitochondria that exist in each and every eukaryotic cell known. We all have tiny bacteria living inside our cells. And there is no way we can survive without them.

@firstbold-please is there any fossil evidence for plant-like ancestor? I just can't stop laughing. Always remember that for organism to evolve and have a different physical look it needs a gain in genetic information not a loss in genetic information.

@secondbold-if they exist why can't we see common ancestor to form from them?

@everybody
This thread is not base on LIFE only don't forget there are many facts stated above. Just let me grant you life started under no oxygen atmosphere.

How does the ozone layer in the atmosphere form?

because you can all agree with me that if our atmosphere should vanish now everything on earth would be disrtoyed.

Anyway what you're arguing about have been noticed by some atheist scientist that's why they later said Life started in the ocean.

Till today scientist can't give a specific place where life start.

Emusan: @everybody
This thread is not base on LIFE only don't forget there are many facts stated above. Just let me grant you life started under no oxygen atmosphere.

How does the ozone layer in the atmosphere form?

because you can all agree with me that if our atmosphere should vanish now everything on earth would be disrtoyed.

Anyway what you're arguing about have been noticed by some atheist scientist that's why they later said Life started in the ocean.

Till today scientist can't give a specific place where life start.

You keep spewing ignorance, first you claimed that the earths atmosphere can not be formed in the presence of sun light. . .Now you are talking about ozone layer. . .From wikipedia. . . Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3.

There is nothing like atheist scientist. . .There are just scientist. no muslim scientist, jewish scientist, hindus scientist or atheist scientist. . . .According to scientist life started in water, your claim that scientist can't give a specific answer is false. . .

Emusan:

You're not an evolutionist yet you know animal evolve from unicellular organisms.

Remember unicellular organism as your claim above shows that they survive through CO2. Then how animal now evolve and survive with oxygen?

According to scientist they evolved as a result of many factors like mutation and adaptation. . .Natural selection. . .

mazaje:

You keep spewing ignorance, first you claimed that the earths atmosphere can not be formed in the presence of sun light. . .Now you are talking about ozone layer. . .From wikipedia. . . Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3

You even try to do a little research. Now listen to yourself: by mazaje from wiki "Ozone is formed by ultralviolet rays stricking oxygen" then where did that oxygen come from, when the atmosphere had no oxygen? You just shot ypurself in the leg, why can't you read what you copy first with an open mind before you paste?

There is nothing like atheist scientist. . .There are just scientist. no muslim scientist, jewish scientist, hindus scientist or atheist scientist. . . .According to scientist life started in water, your claim that scientist can't give a specific answer is false. . .

But do you believe that some scientist are called creationist scientist?


Base on life started in the ocean go and read more about HYDROLYSIS you will know that molecules cannot come together with the effect of hydrolysis.

mazaje:

According to scientist they evolved as a result of many factors like mutation and adaptation. . .Natural selection. . .

Go and read more about Mutations

Mutations cannot cause gain in/new genetic information instead it causes loss in genetic information.
For organism to evolve to organism it needs new/gain new genetic information.

Emusan:
You even try to do a little research. Now listen to yourself: by mazaje from wiki "Ozone is formed by ultralviolet rays stricking oxygen" then where did that oxygen come from, when the atmosphere had no oxygen? You just shot ypurself in the leg, why can't you read what you copy first with an open mind before you paste?

Brother, you don't want to learn. . .Oxygen was first produced by photosynthetic prokaryotic organisms that emitted O2 as a waste product. That was how oxygen came about, it was a waste product of other organisms. . . .Ultraviolet light striking these oxygen molecules created the ozone. . ..

But do you believe that some scientist are called creationist scientist?

They are not scientist but religious people that go about using the knowledge they have gotten through science to further their religion. . .They are not scientist but theologians. . .Tell me, what workable theory have they proposed, these cretion scientist of yours?. . .What scientific knowledge have they added to the world of science what invention have they made from their creation science?. . .Let me give you an example, drugs have been made using the principles of evolution, tell me one thing that has been made using the principle of creation science. . .

Emusan:

Go and read more about Mutations

Mutations cannot cause gain in/new genetic information instead it causes loss in genetic information.
For organism to evolve to organism it needs new/gain new genetic information.

What are you saying?. . . Mutations produces are errors which manufacture alternative genes that may not already be in a gene pool, making it an advantage. Example lets assume that one day, a baby of an animal is is born that has a longer nose compared to the others as a result of mutation and the long nose gives it the ability to dig for bugs easier. This, of course, not only increases its chances for survival, but it also introduces a new allele that wasn't there before. Since this animal's chances for survival are higher due to its ability to find bugs, it will have offspring that carry its long nosed allele. This leads to a chain effect can cause a new breed that only have long noses and thus a new species. . . .That is how it works based on my understanding. . .