Originally posted by the_watcher
*sigh* I love science! Science is awesome because I would not have computers without it, and computers are my life. I have a degree in Computer
Science, and am happily employed with a great company.
But you just think that some of it is bull. Despite the rest of the academic world being against you.
Originally posted by the_watcherEvolution cannot be tested. How can you scientifically prove a single cell organism evolved into a
multi-celled organism? Is there an experiment that shows this process through generations of petri dishes? No.
I'd like this to be put to Beethoven's fifth, please:
So, what you've just said is: "I don't know, I didn't look, I just asserted that I was right, and you are wrong!"
Originally posted by the_watcherHave we ever observed this in nature? No. Can it be studied? No. Can you honestly say there is any
evidence to support it? Maybe.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I have provided evidence above, gleaned from one simple Google search. First page. You clearly did not look.
Originally posted by the_watcherAn experiment that seems to prove it, like one involving mold that needed sunlight to live, adapted to
live without sunlight, does not conclusively prove anything beyond what we already know; which is that animals and plants adapt. So? Things adapt.
They must. If they don't adapt they cease to exist. Our creator knew this and gave His creation a limited ability to do so. Simple as
This is amazing. In one paragraph you can denounce evolution as non-existent, and in this one you can absurdly justify it because now you've called
it "adaptation". You see, something like this is not adaptation. I'll cite from the example I gave you above, and I'd like you to read it twice
so you get the full gist of it:
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability
to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
This means they must have developed a method of doing it, requiring a physical process that was not in place before. It evolved something new, not
adapted something it was already in possession of.
Don't even bring up "our Creator" as you can only cite unsubstantiated superstitious fairytale myths to support it. I want evidence alone, please.
I'm almost a protestant in that respect.
Originally posted by the_watcherPS The scientific alternative to Creationism, evlolution, does not offer any more answers. When I ask a
scientist "What caused the Big Bang?" I get the "We're not sure, but maybe..." answer. How is that different from the answer "It is entirely
possible that a supreme deity willed he universe into being?"
You don't see the glaring logical inconsistencies with this farcical statement?
"Nobody really knows, so it must be God, innit?" is the stupidest thing I ever heard. By your reasoning, it's just as likely to be the Devil,
reptilian aliens, Care Bears and the Wizard of Oz. You can't possibly know its not.
That's the difference between the humble sciences, who are always willing to learn from their mistakes and accept another's point of view, and the
arrogant, absolutist religions, who claim to actually know everything, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with utter infallibility and wisdom.
What a freaking crock!
Originally posted by the_watcherIt isn't any different at all! Either way no one knows for sure, right? Why is evolution so much more
valid then? It offers absolutely no answer that Creationism does not.
Right. Okay. Aside from the fact you're arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution, I know what you're trying to say.
I want you to read what you wrote, and then get back to me. I'm not even going to use this as a punching bag because I think that with a bit of
thought you'll be able to see the logical fallicies within this bit. If you can't, then I'm afraid to say I think this conversation can't go any
further because I don't believe you'll understand the things I tell you anyway.
I will, however, give you a hint: "Look at your sources".