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.
It had to start with some form of a primordial atom eh? So where did the stuff come form to create an entire universe full of matter, gravity, time and space? I know, some sky daddy made the first primordial atoms and made so many of them in fact, that they caused the big bang to happen.
It doesn't matter to the ToE how it started. All that matters is that life did start. Best to brush up on your BB knowledge, atoms were after the BB.
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred.
Evolution may fit the criteria for a scientific theory but the origin of life does not (i.e protein molecules 'evolved' into "life" which further 'evolved' into us). That's basically the best guess they can come up with using evolution. It's not really falsiable.
first primordial atoms and made so many of them in fact, that they caused the big bang to happen.
Made so many atoms that caused the big bang to happen? M'kay...atoms did not cause the big bang. Atoms came after the BB. You have your cart before your horse.
Technically a hypothesis is a testable explanation. We are discussing scientific terms.
That's why I generally either capitalize the word or use scientific. To those who don't actually understand scientific terms vs their normal definition, it helps differentiate.
scientific theory = Theory != theory
scientific hypothesis = Hypothesis != hypothesis
03-13-2013, 08:40 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
It doesn't matter to the ToE how it started. All that matters is that life did start. Best to brush up on your BB knowledge, atoms were after the BB.
Indeed. It's an interesting question, but also one that doesn't concern evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately, the question isn't brought up out of a genuine curiosity, but instead as a last resort. When attacking the theory of evolution gets too difficult, they move on to attacking the big bang theory, something the anti-science brigade clearly understands even less than evolution.
Nothing is wrong with teaching about evolution in schools. Similarly, nothing is wrong with teaching about Creationism. Kids should learn about the conflict between scientific and religious beliefs, and why that conflict can cause problems and misunderstandings. Teaching about it doesn't have to mean promoting it, and I think there needs to be a greater understanding of Creationism, even if it's only taught in a cultural/religious sense.
Evolution may fit the criteria for a scientific theory but the origin of life does not (i.e protein molecules 'evolved' into "life" which further 'evolved' into us). That's basically the best guess they can come up with using evolution. It's not really falsiable.
Abiogenesis is a different discussion than evolution. The topic of this thread is with Evolution, not Abiogenesis. I would suggest you lookup both terms and try to understand that they are way different.
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.
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?
The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is not possible by evolution. This is only possible with creation.
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.
