Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Mountain_Fire77, Oct 11, 2006.
the last i heard these two molecules cannot reproduce themselves, therefor cannot be termed 'life'.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Isn't this the "God of gaps" argument? Where any gap in scientific explanation is room for God as an alternative explanation?
Not yet, but then, life had something like 2 billion years to happen?
Wait and see, wait and see Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's a more polite way of putting the age ol' "God dun it!" explanation.
"What's the sun?"
A rather useless approach to knowledge. Let's keep God out of science.
The two premises, the big bang and spontaneous life, are as hard to believe as any crazy theory. If you are highly educated in any field, science for example, you would be able to present data to prove any theory and stand it up like a house of cards. I think it is great that scientists are exploring god's works, but to worship his handiwork is not what he had intended.
I think it is philosophically confusing to teach scientific theory as fact to children, when we don't really know. Anyone who watched that video must have cringed when they interviewed the students who supported evolution. I thought the quotes from the bible were quite good.
call it what you will but it's still valid.
computers can reduce years to minutes.
Let me get this straight. We have a critic saying that a grammatical error destroyes the worthYness of etc. and etc.
What about the accurate spelling of worthIness?
How many points for akurit spalin?
I'm with Riple,
Now I'm total devotee of Gandhi and M. L. King , However, after seeing this kind of muck, I find myself entertaining intolerant Fantasies.........like.........
An Atheist Jihad !
We just ask people if they believe in God, if they say yes ,we just shoot them.
Then I read in the Post article on religion in America, that only 6% were Atheist. Ok ............we make exception for any pacifists: Quakers, Mennonite, agnostics, deist, ........god doesn't matter as long as their Pacifist.
So now our Atheist Army will only need to deal with a couple hundred million.
"Religion Is BUNK" T. A. Edison
Don't go off topic or anything, guys.
Much as I consider Imaplank to be a total prat with very little of a meaningful education I think you have misjudged him here. He is not saying he thinks the typographical error is dreadful, he is suggesting the CGB (Correct Grammar Brigade) will pounce upon it.
No spaceman! the grammar doesn't destroy it, I was just commenting on how petty people of this board are and that he would get some tit picking at that.
No, the link is merely an obvious straw man and has about as much chance of being the first real challege to evolution out of the billions of others as Kate Moss awakening me and riding my dick tommorow morning and isn't worth the effort of even a glance.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes artard , congratulations you are getting quicker these days(are you taking something?), well done!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same theory. Evolution is well supported. Abiogenesis is still in it's infancy. The discovery of DNA goes a long way to uniting the world of chemistry and biology.
I've got your evidence for evolution for you... right here!!!
Tall people have tall babies (not always, but more often then not)
Being tall is either an advantage or a disadvantage, therefore tall people will either multiply or die out.
Therefore the population evolves to be taller or shorter.
Throw in mutations, which are well documented events and you've got a proved theory of evolution
in the video it's states that there is variety built into the genetic code of all species, and that some varieties are better suited for different enviorments. If suddenly all people over 6' were getting systematically beheaded, eventually most everyone alive and being born would be below six feet. The species has not "evolved", just a dominant trait has succeeded. Or at least that is how I understand the video's assertion.
From what I undertsand of evolution, they use this basic premise to explain how lightning and chemicals became humans. dominant traits and mutations creating higher and higher order.
Holy crap, so I got through about 1/4 of that video before I just couldn't take the punishment any longer. Here are my take aways:
MAD ASSERTIONS (aside from 50% of the content from the 'science' introduction):
* Evolution attempts to explain reality.
* The core rule of evolution is 'survival of the fittest'.
* The universe 'started' as a literal explosion.
* Entropy contradicts evolution.
* If the universe didn't originate from a literal explosion then the only other option for it's existence is that it was created.
* Evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of oure universe... therefore 'God' exists.
The authors of this film are so poorly educated its criminal.
Please explain Mendel's experiments in the light of this statement.
It is only necessary to keep this issue burning for fundies who cannot get past the idea that the bible might not be functional as a news story complete with scientific descriptions. Or perhaps it is being misread in other ways.
This issue has nothing to do with God.
i like to know how you can discount something when there is no reason to do so.
as for as life arising on this planet there is no reason to discount a creator.
AND YOU DON'T CALL THAT EVOLUTION?!?? (It is precisely)
Actually, evolution doesn't address the first life that is called ABIOGENESIS.
Separate names with a comma.