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.
I agree it's way out of date, but think it's clearer to say that there is nothing far-fetched about evolution unless you insist that it work differently from how it is actually presented (a common theist approach, as it spares them being sullied and potentially weakened in faith by actually understanding the science). Yes, sufficient environmental pressure over sufficient time is necessary but it's also inherent in the theory.
ID is nothing but agency inference applied to observable patterns, it does not follow the examination of those patterns where the evidence leads, but presupposes a creator and force fits the patterns to that.
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.
The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.
And yet, we have now frequently observed the formation of just such "impossible" semi-complex molecules out of the nutrient-filled and warmed primal soup. So really now, to still deny it out of some frightened perspective is truly self-imposed and stubborn silliness.
An interaction that causes the formation of a more "useful molecule" {only as regards the eventual formation of simple replicating life...} has been repeatedly and successfully done under the simplest of lab conditions. These conditions have been created to mimic the existing, as well as the primal ocean's, conditions. When such tests, trials and errors are extended over millions upon millions of years, the likelihood of such formation happening is undeniable.
Then, when such useful molecules abound, they move on as their simple predecessors obviously did.
Given a few multi-millennia, what would you expect from such construction of ever-more-complex structures? Just a continuing pile of goo?
Not hardly. Just look in the mirror for an answer!
I suggest actually researching evolution. It is most definitely not 150 years out of date.
I think you misunderstand the OP, he's saying the theist argument against evolution on the basis that it's highly unlikely is an argument that is 150 years out of date.
I think you misunderstand the OP, he's saying the theist argument against evolution on the basis that it's highly unlikely is an argument that is 150 years out of date.
The historical origin of life can never be recreated precisely, so without a reliable time machine, one must instead address the related question of whether life could ever be created in a laboratory. This could, of course, shed light on what the beginning of life might have looked like, at least in outline. "We're not trying to play back the tape," says Lincoln of their work, "but it might tell us how you go about starting the process of understanding the emergence of life in the lab."
Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that
."
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.
