I dont need to Leo - the fact that I am here typing this and you are reading this is proof that life came from non life.
the question that remains is HOW it happened
Denial of evolution III
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
I dont need to Leo - the fact that I am here typing this and you are reading this is proof that life came from non life.
the question that remains is HOW it happened
Thats funny.... I wonder if I accepted what Spidergoat said in the 're-EVOL-ve' thread
I haven't been able to accept anything from you because you don't have a brain to understand a topic or to respond in a manner that actually addresses the thread- instead you choose to simply take everything based upon cult indoctrination- why should I accept bs from you- I can and have accepted answers from people who have a brain enough to provide convincing answers, it just so happens to be that you have never been able to accomplish this feat.
Peace be unto you
But the reason I brought has nothing to do with religious interpretation but rather the how science itself interprets by allowing for simple-explanations as a standard (which has nothing to do with the scientific method)-
You're on a different playing field. I know what you said is true....but the point I brought up is directed related to science and its approach.
Don't pollute this thread like you do others- let other intelligent folks try to answer it because you never have been able to provide anything intelligent except your bs fascination with cults.
Peace be unto you
Really science should also look into what they are really saying and what they actually know. I do not mean that in any disrespectful way, it is just that theory gets mixed up with actual facts. It is safe to say that at this point science does not know how life started, and they don't know if it could have happened without creation. Because science thinks that their idea about evolution is correct and some are saying even fact, they assume that life must have started without a creator.
So that is why we should get into evolution. ( that is what this thread is supposed to about)
So I'll ask again, what does science use as a starting point where evolution begins. If this is not known, or not agreed upon, then the process called evolution must be working for science somewhere?
Can we start with a single cell?
No what SHOULD happen is that you look at what science actually says and what it knows, not what you think it does.
Science does not even consider "creation".
in what capacity are you using the word 'science'?
I believe in and have evidence to support my stand. The only time trolling comes up is when ones , can't support their ideas, and want to stop the exposure, of their beliefs.
But that is not trolling. This is a discussion, of what science really knows and what the evidence really says.
The truth is that science does not know how life started!
I also intend to show from the evidence from science itself that evolution is not correct. I use scientific evidence. So this is not just my opinion. It is based on evidence.
And now I would like to get into evolution so that we can discuss that.
Capacity?
What part of "creation" (in the sense that's being used in this thread) comes under the purview of science?
Science does not look at unscientific theories.
It's quite simple...
Strawman.
Non-sequitur.
Then present it.
No need for discussion until the "evidence" has been laid out.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
And everyone who has nay knowledge in this area agress with that statement, as long as you take off the exclamation mark. The exclamation mark (!) implies surprise that this is the case. There is no surprise. Our ignorance in this area is well known and steadily diminishing.
Please do exactly this. Several of us are waiting to disassemble your 'arguments'.
OK this is fair. It is true, you ( science ) doesn't know yet. That is why I said it takes faith in science that they will be proved correct in the future as they learn more. I don't expect for science to know everything. But at the same time science says it bases in findings on evidence and not assumptions. I know they use theories to research in a certain area, that's fine. But what science says should be based on the evidence. As for the start to life creation is very possible. And if science can get to the point that they can create life in a lab, that 's all it shows. The experiments do not show that it could happen on it's own, or did happen that way. And the experiments are not accurate because science wants to do it fast, rather than work at it for a million years, with all the variables that would include. Besides it is taken man many decades to get where they are now on this question and have still much more to,learn. This is all intelligence. ( creation)
It doesn't do science nay good to bury their head in the sand about this.
I do believe in a creator. I also believe that the creation we see on this earth is for this earth. I also think that the evidence from science supports this. From the start to life and the fossil records and many other proofs as well. It isn't just a religious belief though. That is why I am talking with science, this discussion is just about science. A creator and who he is , doesn't affect this at this point. Because what science has found and has evidence for, should stand on it's own.
I have already established that science doesn't know how life started, creation is still a possibility even with science, they can't rule that out.
The thing is, that science and creation are really not at odds at all.
Science is more comfortable with evolution than the start to life, so I am hopeful we can get into that soon here.
No. There isn't any faith involved. As previously stated science is quite comfortable saying "we don't know"
Which is true.
And you still fail to understand the point and the import of experiments.
Going by the evidence so far the ONLY head buried in the sand is yours.
No, it's a religious belief.
So far the only talking you've done with/ about science is to distort it.
You haven't established anything, all you've done is repeat what science itself has said.
Yes they are.
But the word 'perhaps' is not a fact, science doesn't know that for sure, it is only a guess. If this doesn't prove to be correct, then does that make the whole theory of evolution wrong. Or is it science that is wrong? That also assumes that these molecules were not created and that they do this on their own, and wee not created to do this. Science can't make these claims until they know. Some scientists have said to me, that they may never know the answers to some of these questions. Ok that fair. But it also brings up the thought that, is the reason that they don't know ,is because they are trying to prove something that is not provable. ( you can't prove life started on it's own , if it didn't happen that way. Creation maybe the only way life can come about)
But to just accept something, is not what science is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about evidence.I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis; this method is shown to be not always correct.
That is:
They accept the 'simplest' explanation....
In other words I believe anything that is part of a theory due to the above method is untrustworthy- that includes a lot of things now...
Peace be unto you
Some religious people think like that, and so does science at times.
But for me, I want to make an informed decision, on questions like this.
Not all of science, there are some who go against the dogma.
Yes science uses the simplest explanation that fits the observation, but complex explanations can also fit the data..... To simply use it is without any real backing- You are practically leading a whole generation to believe something that is potentially incorrect due to the interpretation assigned to it in the beginning by taking the simplest explanation (that fits the data, I know).
Same could be true for evolution... its not set in stone.... you don't need a reason to deny something that is not set in stone but is basically based on supposed suppositions that this 'simple' explanation work- You simply can't reject evolution... but you can still deny it!
Atheism doesn't reject God's existence but it does deny it (lacks belief in it).. How is denying evolution any different?
Maybe I'm a Avolutionist- I lack belief in Evolution- because they have no proof that their simple explanation is really the explanation for whats actually going on.
Peace be unto you
But you do think that science will be proved correct in the future with more research? That is the same with religions, also, they believe God will be proved true. For some it is a belief that science will find be the answer. That is faith.
- Status