Evolution, not a fact??????
- Thread starter john smith
- Start date
, Pulling your hair out? "Ouch".
No he doesn't.Ophiolite said:
The question was which would surprise you more.Ophiolite said:
Firstly - there is evidence of life coming from non-life. We, and every living thing on this planet, are alive. And before us must have been non-life. Ergo life from non-life.leopold99 said:
But then I was specifically talking about scientists managing to do the same... and as yet there is no evidence - but then I never claimed there was. It was merely a matter of curiosity - no trick.
I would be amazed by either - but would be much less surprised by the scientists managing to create a life-form from non-life.
john smith,
You should ask yourself why you took macro-evolution as a given fact without trying to observe it. In essence it seems you are exhibiting blind-faith.
I;m glad you use the word "believe", it is most appropriate.
What exactly is a "religious nut"?
Jan.
You should ask yourself why you took macro-evolution as a given fact without trying to observe it. In essence it seems you are exhibiting blind-faith.
I;m glad you use the word "believe", it is most appropriate.
What exactly is a "religious nut"?
Jan.
A religious nut is some crazy bastard of a christian who feels its his right to suggest that anyone who goes against his views are wrong, any situation he found mildly diifcult to explain, he stated was an act of God, he would not accept any arugment from anyone, however relavant, and buried his nose in quoteing biblical quotes, this, in my opinion, is a religious nut.
Jan Ardena said:
Well there are obviously missing gaps, but look at the picture we have found so far and you see very strong evidence - Not faith, not belief.
Don't let your faith in the bible get in the way of logical facts and basic science.
Try reading some articles from a scientific perspective and you will see they don't mention things as fact that can't in some way be observed, the theory part is when we attempt to link the missing parts and describe why it happens.
No evidence other than logic and the fact that:leopold99 said:
Time period: 3 Billion years ago - No life.
Time period: Now - Life - and plenty of it on this planet.
We certainly have a gap in our understanding of the period between when we know there was life and when we know there was not - there is no disputing that.
Noone claims that there is currently anything other than theories for the origin of life, but to jump to the "God did it" answer is meaningless, if that is where you are heading.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
TheAlphaWolf,
and why in the living hell (I just like saying that, no offense meant) would you ever think that if one species becoming another is possible, that it's not possible that in millions/billions of years they turn into other genera, families, orders, etc?
I don't get how people can believe that kind of thing (two thirds creationism, one third evolution). I mean, there's NO reason why all the way evolution couldn't happen.
Apologies for my delayed response.
The only thing that has been observered is micro evolution, and to some degree speciation so why should I believe in macro evolution(billions or millions of years of speciation)?
Should I eat a Hot Dog with Tomatoe Ketchup and onions because Hotdogs are good?
BTW this isn't about liking anything.
and why in the living hell (I just like saying that, no offense meant) would you ever think that if one species becoming another is possible, that it's not possible that in millions/billions of years they turn into other genera, families, orders, etc?
I don't get how people can believe that kind of thing (two thirds creationism, one third evolution). I mean, there's NO reason why all the way evolution couldn't happen.
Apologies for my delayed response.
The only thing that has been observered is micro evolution, and to some degree speciation so why should I believe in macro evolution(billions or millions of years of speciation)?
Should I eat a Hot Dog with Tomatoe Ketchup and onions because Hotdogs are good?
BTW this isn't about liking anything.
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
you mean besides all the fossils, nested higherarchies, homologous/analogous/vestigial structures, certain things that all life has in common (like DNA and the codons for amino acids... and many other things) etc?
well, it's the logical conclusion. If you have a color and slowly add a little of another color, at first it's so little you can't tell them apart. Then you keep changing it and it later becomes another color. It's just common sense. There's no reason why it couldn't happen, and there's evidence that it did happen. Why SHOULDN'T you accept macroevolution?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Alphawolf,
you mean besides all the fossils, nested higherarchies, homologous/analogous/vestigial structures, certain things that all life has in common (like DNA and the codons for amino acids... and many other things) etc?
well, it's the logical conclusion. If you have a color and slowly add a little of another color, at first it's so little you can't tell them apart. Then you keep changing it and it later becomes another color. It's just common sense. There's no reason why it couldn't happen, and there's evidence that it did happen. Why SHOULDN'T you accept macroevolution?
I'm not sure it is common sense actually. I hear the DNA arguments and will remain close mouthed for now. I don't accept it because there isn't enough evidence, a bunch of fossils and peoples opinions isn't gonna change that.
you mean besides all the fossils, nested higherarchies, homologous/analogous/vestigial structures, certain things that all life has in common (like DNA and the codons for amino acids... and many other things) etc?
well, it's the logical conclusion. If you have a color and slowly add a little of another color, at first it's so little you can't tell them apart. Then you keep changing it and it later becomes another color. It's just common sense. There's no reason why it couldn't happen, and there's evidence that it did happen. Why SHOULDN'T you accept macroevolution?
I'm not sure it is common sense actually. I hear the DNA arguments and will remain close mouthed for now. I don't accept it because there isn't enough evidence, a bunch of fossils and peoples opinions isn't gonna change that.
So what exactly would you agree then would amount to evidence???
Look, to any sane-minded individual, evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. Just as we can derive say, table salt, from nothing but natural raw materials and a good working theory , whilst not being able to actually observe the individual atoms rearranging themselves into the new compound, we Know that evolution occurs. Wake up.
Look, to any sane-minded individual, evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. Just as we can derive say, table salt, from nothing but natural raw materials and a good working theory , whilst not being able to actually observe the individual atoms rearranging themselves into the new compound, we Know that evolution occurs. Wake up.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
glaucon said:
I've already said it's a fact, to some degree. Most people know nothing about evolution whatsoever. So what audience are you referring too?