What sources would you consider "legit"? Give me a list if you can so I can give you references you'll accept.
does evolution exsist
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
- Status
What sources would you consider "legit"? Give me a list if you can so I can give you references you'll accept.
the actual lifeform created from the elements and the process used to create it. even with that you would have to prove it could occur naturally.
as far as one lifeform into another i have no clue since it has never been done.
yes, yes, yes, science can mutate fruitflies and other lifeforms but that is not one lifeform into another.
ever hear of the scientific law of biogenesis?
So, there are no sources you would consider "legit"?
there are legit sources.
any source that includes the process and the lifeform created by that process.
i've yet to see any evidence that scientists have recreated life or changed one lifeform into another.
Tell me what the "legit" sources (by source, I mean a scientific journal) are so I can search there for references that will satisfy you.
please, i am tired of reading through material only to discover "it isn't actually life".
i'm not really sure why science hasn't recreated life yet, it's either a matter of semantics or technology or it's impossible altogether.
getting back to the scientific law of biogenesis:
i am wondering whether life was "created" or "began" at all.
this law states that life comes from life, everything science has to say on the subject points to that fact.
life could very well be a timeless entity, it has always been here and by implication so has the universe.
this subject always breaks down into some sort of "god" which inhibits any real discussion on the matter.
funny..my daughter is studying and she said the instructions said wiki wasn't a valid reference..
Evolution is not about the origins of life.
i disagree.
what else explains the total excise of the scientific law of biogenesis?
evolution states life arose naturally, now if that isn't about origins i don't know what is.
Here's a relevant sentence:
"Biogenesis is the theory that living things come only from other living things, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders."
from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
There are clues, there just isn't proof. As long as there are any plausible naturalistic explanations, they must prevail against any religious or supernatural one.
wiki is practically useless as a reference.
the law of biogenesis states:
life comes from life and that of its own kind.
nowhere, at any time has science proven biogenesis false.
biogenesis is a scientific law that has never been refuted, not one single time.
why?
why must cause "B" be ruled out when there is no proof of cause "A"?
You know, this is absolute nonsense. Someone started some crap years ago about how you can create a bullshit entry that will remain there for an extended period time thus leading the entire world into a nightmare of hellish misinformation and now it's become like an urban myth that the ignorant masses love to tell. But try pulling that kind of crap with subject matter that people actually consider academically significant and it wont last 5 seconds.
Wikipedia is one of the most useful tools on the internet. Ignore it at the expense of your own education (and by education I mean separate and apart from what get you at school/university).
See my thread "Wikipedia as a source" in Computer Science & Culture.
Read the references at the end of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
AT least LOOK at the evidence.
there is nothing in the above link that disproves biogenesis.
in fact there is nothing in the above link that deals with the topic.
The post wasn't addressed at biogenesis, it was about Wikipedia's reliability. Look at post #35.
- Status