Originally posted by spliff4020
i havent attacked the validity of science. I just have not seen anything that explain how life starts. Our most brilliant minds have yet to be able to
do it. You can show bacteria and fossils and get an idea of how things got to where they are today. What NOONE can explain, is how it all started. And
to probe a little deeper, what created the thing that created life? what created the thing, that created the thing that created life? See my point? It
can go on to infinity, at which point you need to ask yourself, is it possible that maybe there is a power higher than us ?
Oh I think it's possible, but I don't see any reason to actually believe it. Logic tells me that if God doesn't need a creator, neither should the
And what do you mean no one can explain how it started? We have ideas of how it started, there are timelines of Earth's history, from its formation
to life to present. There are a lot of leading scientific theories on the formation of life, the formation of Earth before that, the formation of the
sun, the cause of the solar system, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. I don't think no one can explain it, I think no one can
explain it to YOUR liking (ie God).
And you shouldn't see it as "what created that which created life." You're looking at this from a religious viewpoint, it has been skewed by our
perspective. Man, the maker of tools, buildings, and knowledge, wants to know who created everything else because that's a view he holds. Everything
has a creator. But that is not necessarily true. Nothing made the Earth, it formed on its own.
The other big problem I have with evolution is a lack of proof. Its called the "theory" because it cant be proven.
I'm not sure how well you understand the basis of science, but a theory is pretty much the highest level a hypothesis can reach. The "theory" of
gravity. The "theory" of evolution. I don't see how that makes it any less valid. Evolution is a theory, scientifically, creationism is not even
When I see fossils, I dont see any transitional fossils. I either see, dinosaurs or birds. Yet modern science tells us that birds evolved from
dinosaurs. Where are the fossils from the "transitional bird/dino"?
This is a common misconception among creationists who don't do their research
. Saying that there are no transitional fossils is either denying
evidence or not even looking for any.
I refer you to the FAQ at Talk Origins on this subject:
The chance that these cells would come together in such a way was to create a human is pretty amazing. The odds must be astronomical.
Although I won't argue that it is indeed amazing, the odds are hardly astronomical. Evolution isn't just random chance. Natural selection is a means
by which species are preserved if they are more likely to survive. I don't know if you've noticed but humans are very well suited to the
environment. Now I know that creationists use this very argument to support the notion that the world was made for us. But that's backwards logic,
"the way water fits so nicely in a puddle." Fact is, WE are adapted for the world. Over time, a series of changes that made us more suitable to
survive were PRESERVED while most everything else was discarded. That's the whole logic behind natural selection.
Now look at those last 2 sentences and consider this: What are the odds of all cells coming together in just the right way so as to produce
EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING ! Chew on that thought for a second. Its a lot to grasp. There isnt a number that large.
See my last paragraph. Every species that is alive today was able to survive, and is either still going strong or starting to fall behind. I think
that a lot of environmentalist thinking that we should save endangered species is not necessary. We're trying to carry over our victory over natural
selection (helping the weak to survive thus preserving weaker genes, although I'm not saying this is bad) to other species that are too far behind to
bother with. Chances are they're endangered for a reason.
Earlier I believe you (or someone) said that if you take all the elements of a blade of grass and put them together, they don't form a blade of
grass. Anyone that actually expects a blade of grass out of this is mad. I actually think mattison was a little more believable when he said that you
don't get life even when all the essential ingredients are there, but even this thinking is flawed. I don't get a cake when I put all the
ingredients in a bowl, now do I?
A lot of things formerly only explainable by supernatural phenomena (for instance, free will is a gift from God given only to humankind) have, in the
light of modern science, been able to be explained naturally (free will comes from subtle quantum effects in neurons within our brains, and brains of
many other higher mammals). I think that creationism is just another one of these passing explanations that will in time be forgotten.
Good day to you all.