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.
The ID hypothesis is not even a good hypothesis. It falls over because it cannot explain the diversity of life on earth and it does not address all the obvious evidence (DNA analysis, fossils, comparative anatomy, vestigial organs, retroviruses etc) that life forms evolved from earlier life forms by modification.
You're still stuck on thinking ToE disproves ID. It doesn't. ToE doesn't address the origination of life on this planet. It only addresses what has happened after life began to exist.
Because there is a vast amount of observable evidence for evolution.
Descent with modification, accounting for the origin and diversity of all species living on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Descent and modification? Yes. Origination of life on this planet? No.
That's not what he said. He said "origin and diversity of all species living on the planet". That doesn't mean what you apparently think it does, so I can see why you may have been confused.
Darwin's book was titled: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"
"Origin of species" does not mean origins of life on the planet.
That's not what he said. He said "origin and diversity of all species living on the planet".
Nearly all currently living species have evolved to their current existence. However, as has been pointed out time and again, ToE does not address the origination of life on this planet. It only addresses what has happened after life began to exist.
Nearly all currently living species have evolved to their current existence. However, as has been pointed out time and again, ToE does not address the origination of life on this planet. It only addresses what has happened after life began to exist.
No-one has ever said it does or was ever supposed to. I'm not sure why you keep saying this over and over again.
This seems to be some kind of straw man argument you are battling.
The ToE does not explain the origins of life, because that's not what the theory is meant to explain. There are other theories/hypotheses about the origins of life on earth. If you have a problem with them, then bring them up.
It's kind of like saying Germ Theory does not explain the origins of life. It's not supposed to.
You're still stuck on thinking ToE disproves ID. It doesn't. ToE doesn't address the origination of life on this planet. It only addresses what has happened after life began to exist.
What the heck? Where have I ever said that the ToE disproves ID?
You seem to be confused between what a Theory is and what the evidence is that it explains.
ID has to explain the same evidence that the ToE does for it to be a valid Theory. It can't.
ID not only has to explain origins, it also has to explain the diversity of life as it is today. It can't.
Maybe you aren't aware of what the hypotheses of ID is?
The Bible is not scientific evidence for the age of the earth.
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.
Where have I ever said that the ToE disproves ID?