Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to Atari X on Mon Jan 18 2010 03:31 pm
>
> I don't believe that is neccesarily true. I think you *might* be mistaken.
> Evolution is a slippery word. Change over time is obvious. What is not obvio
> is how life started here, why the fossil record is such a mess for Darwin's
> theories, or why even the simplest protocell is still so impossible to build
>
> It IS obvious however that if you even start to question "evolution", then y
> are immediatley branded a creationist, etc etc.
>
> I guess we can question everything except "sceince" which is too bad becasue
> science only gets better by being questioned.
The best part about science is that it doesn't give many facts, it only
suggests things that are probably facts based on a preponderance of evidence.
For example, there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that evolution
is, in fact, a reality.
They have a pretty good idea of how life started here, and it begins with
self-replicating molecules in the chemical soup that was the birth of our
planet.
As far as the fossil record goes, that's a strawman and a distortion. There's
an abundance of evidence suggested by the fossil record that suggest evolution.
Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the evidence
laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you suggest?
---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
|
