Shearing the Creationists
Originally posted by Jenyar
Raithere, I'm not going to let you pull the wool over someone else's eyes because of ignorance. When you say "evolution" you mean the (1)theory that intelligent life evolved from dead matter (2)deduced from observed changes in natural life, or differences between existing and extinct species. It is far from fact.
Sorry, but you are the one who is incorrect.
The theory that intelligent life evolved from dead matter is properly called Abiogenesis and is not a part of observed Evolution or evolutionary theory although it is indeed indicated from a scientific 'evolutionary' perspective. However, even a proven creation event would not invalidate the observed facts of Evolution. Fact is fact, you cannot talk your way around it. Abiogenesis, however, is not a fact it is a hypotheses or theory at this point.
Evolution, is defined as, "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.". Which is has been proven to be fact. There is no escaping this fact no matter how many problems/mistakes/contradictions you may have for Abiogenesis or the various explanatory theories of how it has and does occur.
Evolutionary theory includes the various and sometimes contradictory explanations of what the precise mechanisms and history of the development of species are. Indeed, although many of the mechanisms and incidents described in evolutionary theory are facts, there is still quite a bit of contention amongst Biologists in this arena.
Creationists attempt to repudiate the entire body of factual as well as theoretical work under the label "Evolution" while in actuality they are only able to contest Abiogenesis and certain aspects of evolutionary theory. It is the creationists who are being dishonest and attempting to "pull the wool" over our eyes... in actual fact they are lying to us.
Since the odds of life evolving on earth is 100% (since we observe life on earth), why is there no life or remnant of it on the moon
Um, hello. Because it's not the Earth.
which is younger than the earth?
The Moon is approximately the same age as the Earth and, actually, older rocks can be found upon it because it lacks the atmospheric weathering and the plate tectonic activity we find on Earth.
Because you seem to indicate the odds against that is far from impossible - you even make it sound likely in your argument.
It happens, which makes it's certain, which means that the probability that evolution occured on Earth 100%.
The probability that life would occur on any random planet is a different calculation but the indications are quite good that life is rather common throughout the Universe. Intelligent life is thought to be far less likely, civilization even less likely and the chances that there is another civilization with a comparable technology to ours coexisting at the same time period and within a communicable distance is far far less likely.
The probability that life would occur within any random Universe is the one that Creationists like to toss around in order to "demonstrate" the "impossibility" of the conditions for life. However, the problem is that there is only one observable Universe, for which we can only hypothesize the parameters of its occurrence. Basically, the numbers are pulled out of their ass with little to no justification.
~Raithere
