Originally posted by WulebgrI would say that if I understand your reasoning for calling something
I cannot tell if you are expressing it straight or ironic here. Who is the "you" here? Are you telling me I'm preaching to the choir, or are you speaking generally about the social construction of assumptions in a deivided society with c ...[text shortened]... finition of that term.
I don't think you agree with me at all.
a fact, I'd have to believe that facts can be proven wrong from time
to time. If it is accepted assumptions of science that can be called
facts then we could say that at one time in our history when the
people of the world thought the earth was flat, by your use of the
word 'fact' it actually was.
Kelly
Evolution is the only scientific theory which explains life on this planet.
Relativity few people have the scientific background to evaluate the science so they go by their beliefs. In the United States the religous nuts believe literally what they read in the bible.
If you think some other theory does you should join flat earth society.
The real problem is that the math describing evolution, complexity theory, is just being developed.
Originally posted by pulsar8472I disagree with you, evolution describes mutation in DNA changing
Evolution is the only scientific theory which explains life on this planet.
Relativity few people have the scientific background to evaluate the science so they go by their beliefs. In the United States the religous nuts believe literally what they read in the bible.
If you think some other theory does you should join flat earth society.
The real problem is that the math describing evolution, complexity theory, is just being developed.
life from one form to another, it has nothing to do with how life
began.
Kelly
No, wait.
Evolution is a very broad term that describes lifes progression or regression throughout time.
There is an alternative and it doesn't defy darwinism and that is
for a species to take control of its own genetic destiny.
This is going to stir up a snakes pit of religious debate but what
is so unnatural about us writing the next chapter? We have been
given the tools and knowledge to do it by nature.
Do we have any choice or are we just waiting for complexity to make
that choice for us? e.g. war, famine, natural disaster.
I know that if I had a child that could be saved by genetics I wouldn't
think twice.
Mother nature's kicked us all in the ass throughout time I think we
should prepare for war!!
Originally posted by KellyJaySo what you are implying is there is a hole left open here
I disagree with you, evolution describes mutation in DNA changing
life from one form to another, it has nothing to do with how life
began.
Kelly
for you to believe what you want about how life got started, which
it looks like in your case would probably be the "Intelligent Design"
excuse me, Theory. Problem with that is, Ok, if an Intelligent Designer
made our universe, did another Intelligent Designer make OUR
"Intelligent Designer"?
Originally posted by nickybuttAccording to sonhouse, we might want to examine "anti-gravity". It is really good at filling strange niches and wonderously magical possibilities.
As far as I know the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is the best scientific model to explain life as we see it today. However there seems to be quite an opposition against it. But if the TOE is wrong, what else do we have that can explain the multitude of Earth's life?
- Joined
- 08 Jun 01
- Moves
- 343373
2.5 billion years is a long time for evolution to do its job. Nature, including us is amazing, but all the evidence from DNA to molecular biology to all of the earth sciences support evolution. Isn't an eye more amazing than a venus fly trap? And eyes have independantly evoled at least 9 time.
Originally posted by rossrosenbergThat's right. Plants are three days older than humans, insects and other land animals, two days older than birds and marine animals, and one day older than the sun.
Okay, now we know how to evolve eyes, or at least how eyes evolve. Which have existed longer, animals or plants?
Plants.
- Joined
- 08 Jun 01
- Moves
- 343373
Intelligent design refers to the design of the biology of the cell. specifically, to things so complex, that they could not evolve gradually because the eaarler staages wouldn't do anything. So the entity is "irredcuably complex." The theory has been very intelligently refuted by the scientific evidence.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat I'm implying is this:
So what you are implying is there is a hole left open here
for you to believe what you want about how life got started, which
it looks like in your case would probably be the "Intelligent Design"
excuse me, Theory. Problem with that is, Ok, if an Intelligent Designer
made our universe, did another Intelligent Designer make OUR
"Intelligent Designer"?
"Evolution is the only scientific theory which explains life on this planet.”
Evolution does not explain life on this planet as far as how it started.
Creation and evolution are not the same subject. Evolution is a word
that carries a great many different meanings depending on the
context. Even "Intelligent design" really isn't something of the same
subject as evolution, a real comparison would be abiogenesis for
both creation and intelligent design for an apple to apple comparison.
Evolution has to deal with a process of life changing through time
as DNA changes. As far as design or (natural process/chance) of
nature being the guiding force of evolutionary change goes, first I’d
have to see evolutionary changes before I’m going to start worrying
about chance or design causing it. Seeing the common statements,
through billions of years these things have happened, you may as
well say thus says the Lord, because it is faith not an observable or
recorded event we are talking about.
Kelly
Originally posted by rossrosenbergYou have seen cells (living) come into being without design from
Intelligent design refers to the design of the biology of the cell. specifically, to things so complex, that they could not evolve gradually because the eaarler staages wouldn't do anything. So the entity is "irredcuably complex." The theory has been very intelligently refuted by the scientific evidence.
non-living material? Have you seen living cells come into being
through non-living material with human design?
Kelly
