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.
If everyone had a chance to personally examine the "evidence" for evolution and did some critical thinking on the matter they would come up very doubtful.
Likewise if creationists would put critical thinking into their dogma they would have serious doubts.
Why is it so hard to just say, "We don't know".?
Evolution is one the best supported theories in modern science. If you can offer a better theory based on the tons of available evidence, there's likely to be a Nobel in it for you.
Originally Posted by OhZone If everyone had a chance to personally examine the "evidence" for evolution and did some critical thinking on the matter they would come up very doubtful.
Likewise if creationists would put critical thinking into their dogma they would have serious doubts. Why is it so hard to just say, "We don't know".?
Honestly, I couldn't give a hoot what Al Einstein or Chuck Darwin
thought about God. Einstein was a plagiarist, and Darwin misrepresented
adaptation as "evolution".
Do you have a time machine? It sounds like you belong in the 17th century.
If everyone had a chance to personally examine the "evidence" for evolution and did some critical thinking on the matter they would come up very doubtful.
Likewise if creationists would put critical thinking into their dogma they would have serious doubts.
Why is it so hard to just say, "We don't know".?
But we do know...Much of modern technology and medicine is based of what we know about evolution....As for creation, it's just a myth.
A working light bulb was patented before Edison was even born. What does that make Edison?
Einstein (like Edison) was aware of the work and the thinking of many people before him. He merged their collective work into a unified theory, which was easier to understand than the fragments, which is all that any great inventor or discoverer or theoretician does. Of course, Einstein didn't invent algebra, nor the blackboard, nor the speed of light. He used an accumulation of pre-existing tools and resources to make a new and more useful construction, and we call that "invention", not plagiarism.
I don't know what that makes anybody else, but believing anything on that site makes you a gullible sucker.
I don't know what that makes anybody else, but believing anything on that site makes you a gullible sucker.
Anyone who believes that Darwinian Evolution explains the origin of life, is in no position to call anyone gullible. And let's be clear and honest about the true nature of the debate .... There is no argument regarding the fact that evolutionary processes occur within species. There is plenty of evidence for that. But there is ZERO evidence for explaining the existence of life emerging by means of evolutionary processes. The Darwinian evolutionary process is defined as genetic mutation and natural selection ... But in order for that process to occur, a living, self replicating cell possessing genes must first exist. You cannot have genetic mutation unless you already have genes that could mutate. So, contrary to the claims of evolutionists, Darwinian Evolution doesn't even address the origin of living matter, let alone "disprove" creation or intelligent design. Therefore, the OP is correct in the claim that we "don't know"., because we don't! Whatever theory or idea one might embrace regarding the origin of living matter, remains you pure speculation. But I tell you this, the LEAST LIKELY explanation is that this living matter is a result of "natural processes". Fact is, that idea is rather absurd.
To illustrate the point, I like to use the Mt Rushmore analogy. To any casual observer, the faces of US Presidents blasted into the side of that mountain provides all the evidence one needs, at face value (pun intended), to conclude that it could not have been a result of natural rock erosion. Only an imbecile would believe that it was a natural formation. And, we don't need to know who the sculptor was, to recognize that there had to be one..
By the very same exercise of elementary logic and basic common sense, a rational person is forced to conclude that the infinitely more complex structure of a living cell, that of it's DNA, and the complex code containing the detailed instructions for self replication could not have occurred by natural random mixing of raw material. To believe that it was, requires an even greater imbecile, than the one who might believe that Mt Rushmore was a result of errosion.
And also, just like the sculptor who created MT Rushmore, we do not need to know or identify who or what designed living matter in order to reach the ONLY rational conclusion that there had to be one. All of the telltale signs of design and intention are right there for all to see. To even attempt to debate that is a demonstration of pure idiocy.
Well, since no evolutionary biologists have ever made the claim that evolution explains the origin of life, I suspect that you are preaching to the choir. On the contrary, it is creationists who claim that evolutionary scientists have made that claim, and they make that claim (hint hint) because they don't understand the science. The fact is that evolution has never been about the origin of life, and so that claim has never been made by the scientists. You might recall that there is a different theory on origins, and that is the abiogenesis theory.
By the way, arguing from irreducible complexity is just silly, particularly since science refuted it over 80 years ago. Attempting to make a scientific argument for intelligent design, likewise, is also silly. Why? Because those who make the argument from intelligent design conveniently ignore all of the unintelligent "design", and the fact that the universe is NOT finely tuned for life. The fact is, the universe it is utterly hostile to all forms of life. Even life itself is hostile to life, having been in perpetual arms race from its earliest beginnings. Gee, what is it about Texans that they just can't ever seem to get this right?
Anyone who believes that Darwinian Evolution explains the origin of life, is in no position to call anyone gullible.
Lookie - a strawman in the very first sentence! Nobody who understands the ToE considers it an explanation for biogenesis. Do try something else.
Oh, and the Mt. Rushmore analogy? Bishop Paley's Watch did it first - and better. New material, please!
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.
