Imho, you have described the eventual failure of evolution. As soon as scientists are creating and evolutionizing creatures via manual process in the lab, it definitely loses its steam. Essentially they have taken a creation theory and made it fact. Creating the spontaneous changes that define evolution theory in the lab will be much harder to do via randomness. i.e. primordial ooze to mammals.
Imho, you have described the eventual failure of evolution. As soon as scientists are creating and evolutionizing creatures via manual process in the lab, it definitely loses its steam. Essentially they have taken a creation theory and made it fact. Creating the spontaneous changes that define evolution theory in the lab will be much harder to do via randomness. i.e. primordial ooze to mammals.
I'm convinced . . . let's all pilgrimage to the Creation Museum
Those pesky facts are just the work of the devil!
Those pesky facts are just the work of the devil!
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
After reading some of the following posts, I don't think it's that simple.
I think DangerAardvark and JohnOfSheffield have an understanding of religion that is just as fucked up as the Religious Right whackos that elected Bush. They may be looking in different directions, but they're standing on the same mountain.
For the 8 millionth time, evolution does not speak to the origin of life. Not only that, but evolution does not make any claim to the fact that manual direction of increasing complexity of creatures would be impossible, it merely speaks for the vehicle that life on earth has apparently used.
It is a logical fallacy to say that because mankind might someday create and alter life that all life must therefore have been 'created' and directed as well. And finally, evolution is not random. It is the opposite of random. It is one of the more highly directed and ruthless natural forces I can think of.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Most of this thread is just totally ignorant, as if it were a a tractor beam sucking in all the religion bashers and religious whackos. Either some of you don't understand evolution, don't understand religion, or both.
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the changing of existing life. Creationism is a religious belief that (tries to) explain the creation of life.
Now, I haven't bothered to read the details of the organized religious understanding of Creationism, but evolution certainly does not contradict the general belief that an intelligent being, or God, created life. For all we know evolution could be a tool on God's belt.
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the changing of existing life. Creationism is a religious belief that (tries to) explain the creation of life.
Now, I haven't bothered to read the details of the organized religious understanding of Creationism, but evolution certainly does not contradict the general belief that an intelligent being, or God, created life. For all we know evolution could be a tool on God's belt.
Was it a hands off kind of evolution by God or a manipulated evolution by God?
I think the manipulated evolution by God still falls under the definition of creationism.
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that evolution has ever made a claim to the origins of life? Do you even know what the theory of evolution says?
This might explain your difficulty in grasping what everyone in this thread is trying to tell you.
From dictionary.com:
[/quote]
Yes, exactly. The origin of species, not the origin of life. The fact that people here do not seem to understand the difference between these two is very telling.
Thank you for proving my point.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Well, dictionary.com is incorrect, you can ask any scientist in the field and they'll all tell you the same thing, their work is on the evolution of species, not about the origin of them, any idiot can actually deduce that from the very word evolution, well, maybe not any idiot, you couldn't.
Evolution is testable, it is proven and it is as real as everything else in this world, there is no way around it except trying to work around the fact that it actually happens constantly before our very eyes every day.
But you can stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and yell "lalallalalalla" if you really need to do that to keep your fragile faith.
You keep hearing made up words like "micro evolution" and crazy stuff like that, there is no such thing, it's just evolution on a smaller time scale as opposed to a larger time scale, any predictions made USING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN CORRECT!
When it comes to the origin, GoPackGo sufficiantly argued that point and no, scientists are not the god of what they do, they didn't actually create anything, a chemical reaction fueled by electricity did that, so nature in itself was the creator of all living things according to what we know.
Well if theory of evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. What exactly do you call the theory that does try to explain the origin of life?
Well, the basic concept is normally known as abiogenesis. How it happened or how it works is still very much open for debate. Nobody really knows, because nobody has been able to successfully reproduce it. I'm sure that the wikipedia article on the origin of life will have way more information then I do.
There isn't a specific theory that is generally accepted as to the origin of life, so... that question can't be answered very well at this time. I can tell you what theory does not get in there though, and that's evolution.
Life is simply a process of slow burning chemical combustion that has learned to perpetuate itself.
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
What I don't like is that evolutionists come in with an arrogance that if you dispute what they say that you are an asshat, and then when they discover evidence that doesn't quite fit what they have been telling you its "no big deal, we're still right"
Just admit you don't know everything and can't know everything and I wouldn't be on their case so much.
Is that so hard to grasp.
But the whole point here is that it isn't a big deal, because these fossils do nothing to refute the fundamental premise of evolution... which is what you were trying to claim earlier.
You are trying to retreat now from your positions earlier in the thread, because you have been jumped all over by everyone. Face it, you saw something that fit in well with your world view and you thought you had something to bash the evolution crowd with. You were wrong, and you got a bloody nose. You can either learn from this mistake, or you can just pretend it never happened and try and let this thread fall off the front page.
I'm guessing you'll do the latter.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter