Science is often tedious and boring and not in the Jerry Springer like nature these forums often take.
So if your bored by science please skip ahead to part 3 of this post for the Jerry Springer part.
A SCIENTIFIC LOOK AT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
In three parts.
Part 1 - The Past
Part 2 - The Present
Part 3 - The Future
PART 1
What would be necessary for the Theory of Evolution to proven as being scientifically feasible?
First, you would need a Sun. But not just any Sun. You would need the perfect Sun.It would have to be perfectly stable.It's temperature could never vary more than 1% over billions of years. (The time period over which evolution could take place.)
In all the stars astronomers have ever studied would you care to guess what the most stable star in the entire universe is?
Next, you would need the perfect planet, which would have to be the perfect distance from the perfect Sun.
Water is the basic building block of life. So if our planet were approximately 1% closer to the Sun all H20 would be in gaseous form, making life virtually impossible. If our planet were approximately 1% further away from the Sun all H20 would be in solid form (ice) making life virtually impossible.
Of course our Sun is also nuclear reactor which emits radiation so deadly that all life currently on our planet would end within a few hours if we were not protected by a O-zone layer.
So we would need a O-zone layer to magically form.
We would need our planet to stay on one and only one axis for billions of years so a perfect size moon would be needed to keep our planet on axis.
Our planet would need to be protected from asteroids. So a Solar System
would be required.
Between Mars and Jupiter lies the main asteroid belt of our Solar System. Without Jupiter and Saturn to effect the orbits of these asteroid we could expect all life on earth to be wiped out on almost an annual basis.
***********
SO LET'S RECAP.
***********
The perfect planet, the perfect distance from the perfect sun with a perfect moon that is surrounded by other perfect planets to act as giant cosmic sheilds. With a perfect O-zone to stop harmful radiation.
All this and we haven't even reached the point where 2 dead things came together and magically became life. hmm.....
Evolutionists tell us all life came from a single-celled proto-plasma.
Although it is a scientific impossibility, let's just assume that it did, and several dead things came together became a single celled proto-plasm in the primordial ooze.
Is this enough for evolution?
Wouldn't our new life form would need to be born by some food supply? Heck, for that matter wouldn't it need a stomach or some other fully developed means of converting energy.
Also, it would need some way to reproduce itself. But just reproducing exact copies of itself wouldn't be enough to produce our current eco-system.
Our single celled organism would have to begin divergent reproduction. With one of its offsring becomimg "plant-life" that would "breath" carbon-dioxide and exhale oxygen. The other becoming the polar opposite
"aninmal-life" which would breath oxygen and exhale carbon-dioxide.
Lucky for us how that worked out. You may want to check the biosphere project failures to see how hard this balance is to achieve.
http://www.bio2.edu/
We are all odds-makers of a sort here. What's the line...
I could go on forever pointing out infinity to one coincidences that need to be necessary for life to "evolve". How many coinidences in a row does it take before the so called scientific minds begin questioning?