Is evolution allowed by scientific laws?
This week’s feedback features a question from Richard L. from the United States on whether evolution and the big bang follow scientific laws, and another from a correspondent in Canada on speciation within the dog kind, and where foxes fit in. CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds to both queries.
Continue reading at creation.com
The site you've linked to here (Creation Ministries) is NOT reliable. It's a group of ignorant bible literalists who ignore science in favour of the bible – they simple can't be expected to say anything worthwhile about science, ~any~ science.
When they state, as they have, that given scientific evidence and the bible they should ALWAYS favour the bible EVEN WHEN IT'S CONTRADICTED by the scientific evidence, it's a pretty obvious indicator that they should NOT be taken seriously. They don't value evidence, just their bibles.
-Joe AgnostYou mean like when science believed that letting blood was a way of curing sickness and the bible stated that "life is in the blood" (Lev 17:11, among other places)?
Science isn't ignored by these folks, it is given its proper place as a human endeavor.
-JamesA French scientist whoe name escapes me now calculated the probability of the creation of the first living cell. For that calculation he simplified to an extreme degree the composition of that first cell: a) the cell consists of only two kinds of molecules – black and white; b) there are 2000 of them, lined in an order black/white, black/white, etc.; c) the whole universe of 10 to the power of 80 molecules is in a soup at a moderate temperature conducive of life; d) he calculated the time it would take to for that primordial soup to produce by chance a single such molecule. It was 16 billion years. From this he concluded that a chance creation of such a "living cell" was IMPOSSIBLE. The age of our cosmos is estimated as 12 billion years; there are hundreds of different molecules in it; they are widely separated after the big bang; the cosmos temperatures are not supportive of living cells (except on Earth); etc. etc. His conclusion was that there must have been a Creator with a design. Otherwise that French scientist was a non-believer.
-Marc JericThe biggest lie of all about evolution is that it happens by chance. There is almost nothing in the theory about chance, other than geological events. If left to chance your body would disintegrate in seconds. Fortunately, there are catalysts, or in the organic world, enzymes, which remove most of the chance. There are many, many other factors that reduce the chance element to almost nothing. The "Chance Argument" is nothing but a red herring to throw off the ignorant. It's like saying, "if creationism is true then everyone would be made of marbles, but since nobody is made of marbles creationism can't be true" and then going on to argue the marble theory. By the way, the "Missing Link" argument is another red herring. It also means nothing.
-LarryI believe that the Bible and Evolution are integrated. I further believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Not 6 or 10,o000 as some Bible thumpers believe.. So in part Darwin is right and the Bible is also right. So if the two work together as I believe then all is right in the world after all. GOD has a sense of humor and to prove that he made you didn't he.
-CharlesCharles,
I do not hold much respect for the "theory" of evolution. I believe that the 6K – 10K year figure was determined by researching existing historical documentation and evidence. Therefore this estimate of the earth's age may be flawed. It does not take into consideration when Man did not write language, drawings, make marks or any period before Man's creation.
You will make an interesting observation if you study the Book of Genesis. While Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, age and time are never mentioned. Once they are removed from the garden, then you will begin to read instances of relevant age and time.
So we do not know how long they lived in the garden. Theoretically, the earth could be any age. And who says God did not create things with ages built into them? Adam and Eve were not created as babies; the possibility of this being applied to other "creations" is probable.
-JohnHow in heaven's name could an eyeball evolve from a blank face? Better yet, how could the eyeball of a cat, dog, kangaroo, weasel, whale, or woodchuck evolve, and always right in the front of the head? If it's all chance, shouldn't there be at least one species whose eyes evolved on its ass?
-Ralph FilicchiaRalph asked: "How in heaven’s name could an eyeball evolve from a blank face?"
Take some biology classes and find out! The evolution of the eye is well understood and facinating – but that doesn't stop some ignorant hack from using the "argument from incredulity" fallacy against it.
Ralph cont'd: "If it’s all chance…"
Ah… here is one of your problems. It is ~NOT~ "all chance" despite what your preacher told you. It's driven by natural selection.
-joe agnostThe eyeball poses a problem for evolutionists, because the eyeball is always fully evolved in EVERY creature.
-Chocoholicjoe agnost :
Your name suggest " QUE SERA SERA " what will be, will be. Studying biology will not guarrantee you answers to EVOLUTION and CREATION. But this what I can say, whatever the evolutionist claim, that men evolved from monkeys, dogs, fish, whatever… I DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. " Monkey was created by GOD as monkey, they will remian monkey until all the creatures disappear from the face of the earth. ( PERIOD )
-dmp says :Even to ask the question–"Is Evolution allowed by scientific laws," is to admit ignorance. There are several intelligent criticisms of the attack on Evolution here. The criticisms of Evolution are just plain silly and a waste of time. I suggest that those capable of inquiry read "A Christian View of Science and Scripture," by Bernard Ramm who was a scholar in residence at Modesto California. He is both a theologian and, to my delight, has a strong scientific orientation. He also wrote, "A Christian Appeal to Reason," which, tragically, is no longer in print, but which is well worth the effort involved in a search for a copy.
I am not a Christian, but am an Orthodox Jew. That is beside the point. I was a research fellow in Cancer and Hematology at USC and was trained as an Internist. I have been involved in clinical investigation of cancer chemotherapeutic medication. Just so you know.
This issue is not whether or not Evolution holds up and stands the test of time. As Bernard Ramm so incisively points out–Evolution is a responsible _scientific_ theory. Should it be shown (which it has not) to be so fundamentally flawed that it has to be dropped, then another _scientific_ theory will properly take its place. This is the scientific method and does not presume to intrude upon religion. Would that the converse were true.
Those who attack Evolution display colossal ignorance of both Evolution and of the Scientific Method. Moreover, historically, there are numerous deeply religious people who were scientific thinkers. Their religious orientation complimented their thinking; it did not detract from it.
I've said it numerous times: If formal religious belief systems insist on these childish ignorant attacks, they will simultaneously lose credibility as well as potential adherents. If I wanted to put religion out of business, I could do no better than much religion is doing today.
-Moss Posner, M.D.MOSS POSNER, M.D.
So you are a doctor. If you are my doctor, I would get sicker than I first came to see you. You made me confused like crazy monkey. Your explanation, has proven that you need to explain more CLEARLY and SIMPLY for an ordinary man like me to understand. It is easy to tell if human came or evolved from monkey, dog, or fish. These animals mentioned, should not be here by this time. They should have become HUMANS long time ago. There is NO proof that the EVOLUTIONIST are right, because they DO NOT have any proof.
-dmp says :dmp wrote: " It is easy to tell if human came or evolved from monkey, dog, or fish. These animals mentioned, should not be here by this time."
BZZZZZ. Wrong.
Take this example: There are a group of animals, lets call them A1, that live happily in their environment. One day an earthquake occurs which seperates these animals into 2 different groups. The earthquake led to landslides which seperated these animals forever – so they would not be in contact again. One group of A1s continues to live as they have for millions of years, while the other group of A1s finds themselves in a much different environment and slowly evolves to fit this ~new~ environment.
In the end you'd be left with the original A1s and a new species which evolved to fit it's new environment. There is no need for the original A1s to cease existing just so the new species can live on – they ~both~ live on in their respective environments.
This demonstrates that the 'if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?' meme is a red herring.
By the way – do you want to know the most conclusive evidence that we share an ancestor with monkeys? Common DNA.
-joe agnostThe Holy Bible says in (Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 16. And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also.) Today, Monday, September 20, 2010 we look out into the darkness and see a Moon less than full. Earlier in the month there was no Moon at night; there was no light to rule the night. What happened? Could it be that on the fourth day when God did this, the Moon was much closer to the Earth and so close that it stood still, staying at that time on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun? That way it could give light at night. But as the Solar System EVOLVED, the rotation of the Earth started pulling the Moon from its stationary position into orbiting the Earth as it does now. That would have been several billion years ago! Since scientists placed mirrors on the moon back in the 60s, they can now point lasers at the mirrors and measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon, precisely. They have found that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at about 1.5 inches every year. they have calculated that the Moon, in a couple of billion years, will be 1.6 times as far away as it is now. Could God have told us already that his creation days were a lot longer than we determine a day to be at this point in time and that things evolve with time? God is large and in charge. Get use to it.
-William BrownExcuse my Asking, But WHY DO Reasonable, Educated, Common Sense people even listen to those Stupid, Ignorant, ATHIEST A**H*L*S ?? All they want is an argument. Even their ICON Darwin admitted on his ?Death Bed that he LIED.
-BobinPaBobinPa wrote: "Even their ICON Darwin admitted on his ?Death Bed that he LIED"
False… but funny that you would attempt to continue the myth. If you showed some evidence for this (you won't) I'd appreciate it!
The theory of evolution isn't some lie thought up by Darwin – it's a solid theory having been tested and accepted by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years.
If Darwin thought his theory was a lie on his death bed (which he most certainly did not) it wouldn't matter. The theory is accepted, and has been expanded on, and continues to be the strongest evidenced theory in science today (stronger than the theory of gravity!).
-joe agnostI missed this the first time around…
BobinPa wrote: "WHY DO Reasonable, Educated, Common Sense people even listen to those Stupid, Ignorant, ATHIEST A**H*L*S ?"
They don't. It seems to only be ignorant bible-thumpers on this thread…
-joe agnostThe theory of evolution is being disproven everyday with the discovery of evidence that what the Bible says is true. Those of you who still subscribe to this theory really need to read your Bibles, assuming you still have one.
-SBridges379As an atheist I don't have a bible – nor do I wish to get one.
If you have evidence which disproves the theory of evolution you should really get started providing it!
Talk is the only thing creationists have – actual evidence is never a part of their thinking. Show the evidence and let us learn!! Without evidence you just sound like a fool.
-joe agnostEvolution is complicated. Of the many people who pontificate on it, either for or against, only a tiny minority have actually bothered to study it in any detail. Call it the progression of simple to complex organisms, and a biologist will tell you that's not exactly true. Call it survival of the fittest, and a biologist will tell you that this is only one of several mechanisms. Say it's a fact, and a biologist will point out that it's also a theory. Say it's a theory, and a biologist will point out that it's also a fact. One might be forgiven for throwing up one's hands and asking why there isn't a simple explanation, were it not for the fact that a scientific explanation can only be as simple as Nature allows, and should not cater to the uneducated man's desire for a 5 second sound-bite. The same must be said of the scientific method and philosophy.
Creationism, by comparison, is disarmingly and seductively simple: "God did it". And its chief philosophical argument is, much like Pablum, easy to digest for even the smallest children: "You can't prove there's no God". Those who (ironically) oversimplify the idea of Occam's Razor believe this to be an advantage. As per Sydney J. Harris, creationism can very easily be put in a nutshell, but because it has no substance whatsoever, that's also where it belongs. Not in school classrooms, not in science textbooks, and not in the lexicon of any scientifically literate person on this planet.
-JeffNot only do the laws of science allow evolution, it is one of the most well supported theories in science. It is so solid that it can be taken as fact.
Scientists argue about specific details of mechanisms, but they know evolution is solid and real. The same principles that make this computer work, also make evolution work. Modern medicine uses the principles of evolution in multiple ways from research and development to diagnosis and medical practice.
Don't believe in evolution? Then toss that computer and skip ever going to the hospital—doing so would be hypocritical.
Sbridges379 said: "The theory of evolution is being disproven everyday with the discovery of evidence that what the Bible says is true."
This is patently untrue. You would like to think so, but then it does make you feel good.
Religion is a way that people can feel good about thinking wrongly.
-Charles HigleyOne has only to look at the wonder and beauty of the earth to KNOW that it was created. And by who else but the Great Creator.
-PatriciaThe Bible is GOD'S living breath and we need to be thankful for each breath he allows us to take. To think that a mere man could have created the sun moon,stars, etc makes my head swim. GOD tells us that without 'Faith' we have nothing and FAITH is what truly learned men teach. There is nothing more to say.
-Eleanor D. PryorEleanor wrote: "To think that a mere man could have created the sun moon,stars, etc makes my head swim."
Then stop thinking that… because I don't know anybody who has made that claim!
Seriously – is that what you think scientists believe?? That "man" created the cosmos? I can't imagine where you got that idea…
-joe agnostDon't yoiu just love those "arguments by Joe Agnost? The evolution of the eye has been proven? That's easy to say–but how about some proof? Or do we need another one of his phantom earthquakes?
-Ralph FilicchiaRalph wrote: "The evolution of the eye has been proven?"
Not "proven" – proofs are for math. The evolution of the eye is well understood <- that's what I said. And it's true.
Ralph cont'd: "That’s easy to say–but how about some proof?"
I can point you to some easy-to-understand web pages that describe this if you wish:
www DOT talkorigins DOT org SLASH indexcc SLASH CB SLASH CB301.html
Just replace the " DOT " with a "." and the " SLASH " with a "/" and that URL will work.
Ralph finishes with: "Or do we need another one of his phantom earthquakes?"
Do you deny that my earthquake example illustrates why we still have species around that we've evolved ~from~?
If you don't understand my earthquake example (above) then you don't have to be embarrassed… just ask for help!
-joe agnostJoe:
I will check out those references. But first, Of course I deny your earthquake examples. You guys are all alike. Every time you are in a spot you "invent" something like an earthquake. Sure, that could have happened—but there's no proof that it did, yet you insist upon calling this "dream" support for a scientific theory. In the adult world you can't get away with that. This is one the level of saying, "A rattlesnake has two eyes in the front of his head. I do too. Therefore there is a high probability that I evolved from rattlesnakes." Furthermore, where is the proof (since you claim it's all over the place) that a different environment can cause one species to evolve into another species? Ever heard of DNA and the impossibility of a normal man and woman having a son who at age 14 begins to develop blue feathers on his arms and a beak just because they left him in an aviary?
-Ralph FilicchiaRalph wrote: "Every time you are in a spot you “invent” something like an earthquake. Sure, that could have happened—but there’s no proof that it did"
It wasn't meant to be a "proof" of anything. It was meant to be an example of ~how~ a species might evolve while leaving a branch of the original species in tact.
It's not meant to "prove" anything and doesn't have ANYTHING to do with evidence for the theory of evolution.
It's not rocket science – it's VERY easy to see how different branches of the same species vary over time. In fact – it's done in the lab all the time… check out the work they've done on fruit flies.
The creationist line of 'if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes' is ignorant and simply displays a lack of knowledge regarding the theory of evolution.
Ralph cont'd: "where is the proof (since you claim it’s all over the place) that a different environment can cause one species to evolve into another species? Ever heard of DNA and the impossibility of a normal man and woman having a son who at age 14 begins to develop blue feathers on his arms and a beak just because they left him in an aviary?"
Oh dear… this is more extreme ignorance. Have you learned ANYTHING about the actual theory or do you just go by what your preacher drills into your head?
Evolution doesn't say that a human will be born and then develope feathers sometime during it's life… you need a basic course in this I'm afraid – your mind is filled with so many untruths about the theory that I'm not surprised you don't believe it. I wouldn't believe ~your~ version of the theory either.
But the theory is nothing like you imagine it… I think you'd be surprised at it's beauty if you took the time to learn the truth about it.
-joe agnostthe amazing thing about evolutions is that it seesm to have stopped when a money or 2 became men or women. there has been no improvement in apes . they are same as they have been and don't say it takes millions of years since you already believe the eart5h is millions of years old, where is the link from ape to man? where is the evolution working or does it just do spurts and jumps.
-PurdinPurdin wrote: "the amazing thing about evolutions is that it seesm to have stopped when a money or 2 became men or women."
What is it with creationists that they have to both deny evolution while simultaneously not know a damn thing about it!!
Evolution doesn't turn a monkey into a human. Evolution produces ~small~ changes in a species. Enough of these small changes and ~eventually~ you arrive at a new species entirely.
Purdin wrote: "you already believe the eart5h is millions of years old…"
No – the earth is almost 5 Billion years old. That's ~B~illion, not ~M~illion.
Purdin cont'd: "where is the link from ape to man?"
Visit:
www DOT talkorigins DOT org
You will find plenty of information about the various "missing links" that have been found. The thing about missing links is that when you find one, you've just created 2 more missing links (on either side of the one you've just found). With fossils being as rare as they are it's truly amazing how many fossils they've found!
-joe agnostJoe
OK, here's your chance to be a hero. "Evolution makes small changes in a species until it becomes a new species?" Fine. Name one! And never mind the sweeping statements, get specific. Name one! Tell us about an A that evetually became a B. And you can throw in all the earthquakes you want.
And fru it flies…? You gotta get up to date. But still, another chance to be a hero. Name me something that used to be a fruit fly, or evolved from a fruit fly, or whatever. And by the way, your arguments seem to indicate you are a college student, or former student. And don't think that's a compliment–it's not. Everything you say is based on wild and unproven theories that to this day have never been able to show where one species evolved into another species. I'll bet yoiu even believe that dinosaurs evolved into pigeons. If you answer yes to that you must have Jello for brains.
-Ralph FilicchiaThere are over 3000 different species of fruit flies… They have such short lives that scientists can witness several generations of fruit flies evolve in a matter of weeks. This short life span is why the fruit fly (or Drosophilidae) work yields such strong results.
www DOT talkorigins DOT org SLASH indexcc SLASH CB SLASH CB910_1.html
Ralph wrote: "your arguments seem to indicate you are a college student, or former student."
Right – University educated, but not in biology. The biology I've discussed is barely high school level – which only goes to show how uneducated you are about biology. A high school education in biology would clear a lot of your misconceptions up Ralph…
Ralph cont'd: "Everything you say is based on wild and unproven theories…"
Ok ralph – show me. Show me where I've based anything on "wild and unproven theories".
Ralph cont'd: "…to this day have never been able to show where one species evolved into another species."
www DOT talkorigins DOT org SLASH indexcc SLASH CB SLASH CB901.html
Ralph finished with: "I’ll bet yoiu even believe that dinosaurs evolved into pigeons. If you answer yes to that you must have Jello for brains."
No, dinosaurs didn't "evolve into pigeons"… you should sit down for this next part though: dinosaurs share a common ancestor with pigeons. Chew on that!
-joe agnostJoe:
You just shot yourself in the foot. You say there are 3000 species of fruit flies. BUT THEY'RE ALL FRUIT FLIES! I have 3 kids and none of them look alike, but that doesn't mean there is some kind of evolution going on in my family. If you could show the line connecting a fruit fly with a sparrow (or whatever) you might have a case. But as of now you have nothing. Now I'm going to look at some of the websites you listed. This should be good for laughs.
-Ralph FilicchiaRalph wrote: "You say there are 3000 species of fruit flies. BUT THEY’RE ALL FRUIT FLIES!"
What makes ~you~ say that they're "all fruit flies"? What do you use to determine different species… I generally use the fact that they cannot interbreed – that's a pretty easy way to tell different species apart.
Your kids ~can~ interbreed (it sounds like that runs in your family! Thank you thank you… I'll be here all week…). Seriously, joking aside (I don't think your family interbreeds – it was a joke).
So, your kids can interbreed – hense SAME species. A house cat and black lab dog cannot interbreed – hense DIFFERENT species.
I've never been able to get any creationist to define this… let's see if you (Ralph) will be the first. How do ~you~ define species? Is it like your biblical "kind"? If so, how do you define "kind"?
-joe agnostJoe:
OK I would say the line before your last paragraph has it pretty good. Also, I could agree with the definition of the word from any decent dictionary. I can list 5 species right now: Camels–dogs–sharks–humans–eagles. I fail to see what the mystery is here. The answer to your question could be given by any junior high school kid. That Talkorigns site didn't say much about what we are discussing. Yes, the peppered moths changed to adjust to the new environment. BUT THEY WERE STILL MOTHS! THERE IS NO SPECIES CHANGE HERE. Hasn't science already proved that it is impossible for for a species to pass on to its offspring a characteristic it does not possess? And if that's true there goes your theory of evolution. Yes, we can have a mutation here and there, but the vast majority of them are degenerative and die out. But again, you have to "assume" all these mutations anyway to make your argument work. Where is the scientific evidence that any of them ever took place? To build a scientific argument on something that has never been seen or tested for verification is not scientific.
-Ralph FilicchiaYou didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you for examples of different species – I asked for your definition.
Let me make it simpler for you: Do you agree that 2 animals that cannot breed together would be classified as different species??
Ralph wrote: "Yes, the peppered moths changed to adjust to the new environment. BUT THEY WERE STILL MOTHS!"
Indeed… nobody claimed they were different species. What about with fruit flies though – they ~are~ producing different species… I noticed you ignored that.
Ralph wrote: "Hasn’t science already proved that it is impossible for for a species to pass on to its offspring a characteristic it does not possess?"
No. It's exactly the opposite in fact. This is one part of the process of evolution – genetic mutation.
If what you wrote were true no black haired parents would ever have blonde children!
Ralph wrote: "And if that’s true there goes your theory of evolution."
True. Too bad for creationists that what you wrote was NOT true.
Ralph cont'd: "Yes, we can have a mutation here and there, but the vast majority of them are degenerative and die out."
You just contradicted yourself here! How can science "prove" something can't happen that you just said happens "here and there"? You can't have it both ways Ralph…
Ralph wrote: "you have to “assume” all these mutations anyway to make your argument work."
WTF?? Are you saying that scientists haven't ~seen~ mutations with their own eyes? You're about 50 years behind the times my friend…
Ralph cont'd: "Where is the scientific evidence that any of them ever took place?"
In the DNA of fossils. It's not made up – they've seen the mutations. Not all fossils yield DNA, but when they do scientists are able to sequence the DNA to so all sorts of cool stuff… like mutations for instance.
Ralph finished with: "To build a scientific argument on something that has never been seen or tested for verification is not scientific."
I tend to agree… this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution though as there is ample visible evidence for those who care to actually look.
-joe agnostJoe:
You do a lot of talking, BUT YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN ANYONE WHERE ONE THING EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. You claim this happens, but you don't illustrate, prove, explain one example. You just talk and indicate that everyone else is dumb for not believing as you do. Looking over all your posts I don't see one argument or example explaining how kangaroos evolved into giraffes, or rats evolved into beavers–or any other way you want to work it. C'mon, gimme something. Tell me how the human eye evolved, or your cat's eye, or anyone's eye, and never mind the phony bluster that the evidence is ther for those who care to actually look.
I'll look. Show me. Quote your guru who can explain the evolution of an eyeball that has automatic focusing, automatic aperture adjustment, and that can see both day and night in living color. Show me how the veins and arteries that feed it necessary blood "just happened" to evolve. Show me how the optic nerve that supplies the retina and that conducts visual stimuli to the brain "just happened" to evolve. Show me how the lacrimal gland evolved to secrete clear saline fluid (tears) between the eye and the eyelids to moisten the parts and facilitate their motion somehow just "fell into place."
But you can't. Neither can any of your websites Oh sure, they can throw out wild guesses and theories, but they are not worth the paper they are written on and most people know that. In my book "If The Bible Is Really True…You Could Be In Big Trouble" (Aceriterbooks.com) I quoted Dr. George Wald, winner of the 1967 peace prize, who once wrote: "When it comes to the origin of life on earth, there are only two possibilities, creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. But we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance."
Well at least the guy was honest. We believe what we know is not true, because the alternative might scare the hell out of us! By the way, I won't write back. This is taking up too much of my time. Nice talking to you.
Ralph
-Ralph FilicchiaRalph wrote: "I don’t see one argument or example explaining how kangaroos evolved into giraffes, or rats evolved into beavers"
That' because it (evolution) doesn't work like that. You want to see an animal turn into another animal – of course this doesn't happen over night. It's small, TINY, changes that accumulate over time that produce different species.
The fruit fly example that I linked to – which you seem to have ignored – is a prime example of this. They ~are~ producing different species.
Ralph wrote: "Tell me how the human eye evolved"
It much to technical for me to explain in a comment, but I'll pass along several links that explain this well.
en DOT wikipedia DOT org SLASH wiki SLASH Evolution_of_the_eye
www DOT sciencedaily DOT com SLASH articles SLASH e SLASH evolution_of_the_eye.htm
The wiki link also has several references and further reading links.
There is nothing magic about this – it's explained in great detail… if you actaully look.
Ralph wrote: "Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago"
No it wasn't. Pastuer didn't suceed in creating life from non-life, but that doesn't "disprove" it.
Quantum Theory shows us that matter can spontaneously appear – they've shown this in a lab.
Of course this has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution – nothing. The theory of evolution models how life changes over time – not how life appears in the first place. That's why so many theists are able to believe that god created the life and evolution guides it.
If you have a beef with abiogenesis don't take it out on evolution.
Ralph finished with: "By the way, I won’t write back."
I don't blame you… you do appear rather out of your league.
I'd like to finish by repeating that I wouldn't believe the theory of evolution as you understand it either. Your version (ralph) is unbelievable – but it's also not an accurate version. It's plain wrong on so many points – like abiogenesis being a part of evolution, or that kangaroos turn into giraffes or that evolution works on an animal after it's born (to change physically)… so much ignorance.
It's the classic case of a person that doesn't know the first thing about the theory or how it works – but is CERTAIN it's wrong. If you actually took the time to learn it you'd be surprised at how well it works!
-joe agnostSeems like it's essential to clean up your blog.
-Band Saws For SaleI appreciate the post, I really loved running across your posts. I chanced across this place while googling some fact finding at my job and I've been trying to make the entire article to display however it really is weird only something like 50 percent of your post is showing up for me. I must reload the web pages on this blog a lot to get your complete page. Is your the internet website web host provider or my firefox. I've attempted sending this quite a few times but it doesn't appear to be showing up inside the comments. Should I kill and reload my browser?
-baby room themes