Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
- From: "Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jul 2006 14:21:08 -0700
shinryuken88@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The argument :
First and foremost we have to understand that there are really only two
theories on how life started.
No there aren't.
There are many theories of how life originated which are being
evaluated by science.
Creation, or evolution. It's one or the
other that a person must believe.
It's neither.
Creation is not a theory
Evolution is not a theory for the origin of life.
Now in order to have an informed
opinion a person must weigh the evidence and decide.
The Bible states that God created everything. This took place about 6,
000 years ago. The creation process took 6 literal 24 hour days, and
everything from the stars and moon, to plants and man were created in
that time period. The Bible goes on to say that about 4, 400 years ago,
God destroyed all of life on earth except for Noah, his family, and the
animals on the ark, with a world wide flood.
Evolution states
"Evolution" doesn't "state" anything. It is a phenomenon we can observe
in populations of living organisms.
that everything in the universe came from nothing
about 20 billion years ago(by the way that number has increased
throughout the years).
Biological evolution has nothing to say about the origins of the
universe, which happened about 14 billiion years ago. The estimates of
age become increasingly accurate as we obtain more data.
They say that the entire universe was compacted
down to a speck no bigger then a period.
Say that if you will, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the
scientific account of the origin of the universe.
This dot spun faster and
faster until it exploded into the universe.
Which bears no resemblance at all to the scientific account of the
origin of the universe. This is what happens when you rely on Hovind
for scientific information: you look like an uneducated idiot.
Then in a step by step
process (through mutations, which are 99.99% negative and lots of the
time deadly, and natural selection) life started. Random chemicals came
together to create bacteria which eventually became man. Let me ask one
question before starting. Where did the dot come from?
As it is something you or your souces have invented, perhaps you should
provide the answer. By the way, it has absolutely nothing to do with
biological evolution.
The scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. It
is impossible to prove scientifically both theories of origin. Why?
Because science does not prove anything. By the way, there are several
hypotheses of the orgin of life, none of which is "creation".
Because no one was there to observe the beginning and we can not
experiment with the beginning. So why is it that creation is referred
to as a religion
Because that's what it is.
while evolution is called science?
Evolution is not called science. It is an observed phenomenon for which
science provides an explanation.
Evolution is a
religion also, because it can not be scientifically proven.
That makes all science religion, because nothing can be "scientifically
proven".
CAn't be bothered to continue.
Get an education.
Don't imagine you can get it from Hovind and his ilk.
RF
<snipped>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
- Next by Date: Re: Mitochondrial Eve a 'fact'?
- Previous by thread: Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
- Next by thread: Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
