I have been banging my head trying to figure out what to use for my first blog post, though. I've tried the blog thing before, and it just never struck my fancy. Of course, I've never hosted my own blog before. That might change it for me a bit.

So, for my opening post, I'm going to start by stirring the pot. I'm starting with Darwin.

Now, most people are probably going one of two ways in their minds right now. They are either deciding I am some kind of whack-job, or wondering what there is to start with. After all, Darwin proved evolution, right? He proved we all crawled out of the mud, didn't he? He proved how life began, right?

Anybody who is willing to answer that question truthfully will tell you 'no'.

Now, Darwin's theory of evolution was a brilliant break-through. It demonstrated, for the first time with proof, that creatures could change over time. As normal of a concept as that seems now, people were burned at the stake for less in the past.

My problem with Darwin's theory is that it, in fact, does not explain the beginning of life. Even now, Darwinists will stutter away some possibility that is the majour belief this week. These range from lightning striking mud, which just happened to have 250 proteins in the exactly perfect order, to some kind of organic growth on the back of crystals that mutated. They never do explain how that organic growth came to be, though.

Of all the Darwinistic explinations I have heard, the lightning striking mud has the highest probability of actually having happened, but what does that mean? What are the actual odds of it? Let me break it down for you. For ease and in an attempt to not blow anybody's mind too severely, I'm not going to add the actual lightning strike hitting at just the right place at just the right time, the likelihood of all 250 required proteins being found in the same area, or even the likelihood of one poddle of ooze being able to support all 250 proteins.

No, I am just going to show you the odds of one aspect of that happening. I am going to show you the odds of all 250 proteins randomly being in the exact order needed for life to form, ever. 1 in 1x10^35. There is no name for a number that large. Typing out all of the zeroes, it would look like this: 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If you add in other neccessities: the possibilities of everything else happening at just the right time, the odds of it every happening become exponentially larger.

Why do I bring this up? Because Darwinists will tell you that Darwin answers everything we need to know about the history of life on Earth. Unfortunately for them, Darwin's Theory of Evolution does not actually begin until life actually exists. The actual formation of the initial life is not accounted for by Darwin.

So, for those who thought I was going to call for Darwin or evolution to be removed from science and actually bothered to read this far, you are probably wondering where I would actually place Darwin and his theory. When thinking this over, my mind wanders towards Einstein, and his theory of relativity.

You see, there are a lot of people who seem to believe that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is infalible, that it is the core of quantum physics. However, even Einstein knew differently. The Theory of Relativity is just a small section of a much larger field, which scientists have continued to expand on over the 80 years.

Here-in lies the difference between the way Einstein and Darwin are treated. Darwinists seem to be incapable of comprehending that Evolution is only a small part of a much larger field, and relatively little progress has been made in that field since his theory was generally accepted. As it is, well-respected scientists have been fired for simply implying that the Theory of Evolution doesn't have all the answers. So, what do you think? You can reply on my forums.