Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually it IS binary. If you don't believe in God, there is nothing else to believe in but the theory of evolution.
What if I believe in a different god that did not create anything?
Many religions do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
There are a vast number of evolution myths out there and new ones appear quite often since everyone is free to create their own version of evolution based on whatever theories they choose.
I find it curious (to be polite) that these folks opposing the evolution theory have nothing but barbs against the theory that has been confirmed over years, yet offer nothing of their own.
The fossil record and the modern science of genetics do not prove some important assumptions upon which Darwinism is based. The leap to life, a cell capable of self-replication, assumed by Darwinists to have self-created, isn't directly supported by any verifiable evidence. Lots of speculation...no real evidence.
It seems to me your problem is with Darwinism- you are not alone, even within the scientific community.
"Evolution" as a fact, however, seems to be indisputible.
Pools of proteins and amino acids may exist whether life does or does not exist. One is not evidence of the other.
Why would one have to be evidence of the other? All these things exist. They have their own evidence.
The question was your bogus claim that the evidence for life arising in "Darwin's warm pond" was no better than the evidence for life having been created. But that is objectively not true.
We actually have evidence that "Darwin's warm pond" could have existed. We have no such evidence for your creator.
That makes the natural explanation objectively superior right out of the box. It doesn't even have to be right... and it's still an objectively superior explanation... based on evidence.
It seems to me that it would be more logical to believe that a super scientist took these proteins and amino acids and created life than to just say it was a one time accident.
Then it is a very good thing that evolution does not assert that it was a one time accident.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
