Originally posted by scottishinnz Viruses. Although that's in the modern world, right now. Back in the day, full cellular machinery may have been even less necessary.
How do you know as a fact that full cellular machinery may have been less necessary in the past?
Originally posted by XanthosNZ You want to explain what you mean here?
First of all I have never made a claim to know much about science nor have I argued from a scientific position.
Secondly, I said that your error is in your theory because it's not a FACT, but you insist that the evidence is all around us. You are obviously biased. (in my opinion)
I see evidence all around us for creation. You think I'm deluded. I think your blind.
We are at an impasse.
But I like people, even when they don't like me or what I believe. So let's just keep on keepin on without the bad feelings that can arise when we fail to recipricate respect. Iron sharpens iron. 😉
Originally posted by dj2becker How do you know as a fact that full cellular machinery may have been less necessary in the past?
The environment was more reducing, this promotes things like spontaneous condensation of nucleotides and amino acids. Also, the biochemistry of the organisms at the time would have been simpler, since processes such as respiration would not have used oxygen, since there was none in the atmosphere.
Of course deej, I already know what your dull, inane questions are going to be. Unlike Joseph, who actually appears to want to learn, YOU only want to be a troll.
Originally posted by josephw First of all I have never made a claim to know much about science nor have I argued from a scientific position.
Secondly, I said that your error is in your theory because it's not a FACT, but you insist that the evidence is all around us. You are obviously biased. (in my opinion)
I see evidence all around us for creation. You think I'm deluded. I think you ...[text shortened]... the bad feelings that can arise when we fail to recipricate respect. Iron sharpens iron. 😉
It seems you don't know the definition of a scientific theory.
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
Evolution is a scientific theory, you assume this means it's a guess. It doesn't.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ It seems you don't know the definition of a scientific theory.
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through expe ...[text shortened]... ."
Evolution is a scientific theory, you assume this means it's a guess. It doesn't.
Ok. I have to go in a minute so I'll check back later if I can. At least by tomorrow.
So then, you believe it's an observable fact, through scientific methods, that everything that exists came about without a cause, and is in a state of evolving toward a higher and more complex form?
Originally posted by josephw Ok. I have to go in a minute so I'll check back later if I can. At least by tomorrow.
So then, you believe it's an observable fact, through scientific methods, that everything that exists came about without a cause, and is in a state of evolving toward a higher and more complex form?
I may have phrased it wrong!
Not at all. Everything within the universe has a cause. The universe itself, however, need not. That, however, is out with the bounds of evolutionary theory.
Evolution is a non-random process. Evolution is simply the process of mutation (itself a non-random process) and differential survival (or differential death, depending on which way you look at it) and reproduction. Under limiting environmental constraints the best adapted to their environment survive and pass on their genes, whilst the least well adapted die out.
Originally posted by josephw Ok. I have to go in a minute so I'll check back later if I can. At least by tomorrow.
So then, you believe it's an observable fact, through scientific methods, that everything that exists came about without a cause, and is in a state of evolving toward a higher and more complex form?
I may have phrased it wrong!
No evolution doesn't work towards any goal - nothing's evolving towards higher or more complex forms - other than the goal of survival.
If some evolutionary adaptation helps you survive, you keep it and pass it on to your kids. If it doesn't, you die.
Originally posted by josephw Ok. I have to go in a minute so I'll check back later if I can. At least by tomorrow.
So then, you believe it's an observable fact, through scientific methods, that everything that exists came about without a cause, and is in a state of evolving toward a higher and more complex form?
I may have phrased it wrong!
Evolution has no defined end point, it has no goal, it has not more sentience than Gravity or Erosion. It just is.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Not at all. Everything within the universe has a cause. The universe itself, however, need not. That, however, is out with the bounds of evolutionary theory.
Evolution is a non-random process. Evolution is simply the process of mutation (itself a non-random process) and differential survival (or differential death, depending on which way y ...[text shortened]... nd pass on their genes, whilst the least well adapted die out.
Is there proof for...
02 Apr '07 01:03
Back to Top