Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to Atari X on Tue Jan 19 2010 07:36 pm
>
> The fossil record is jumbled up badly. That's not a strawman. The fossil rec
> shows life here as soon as the planet can support it - which so far accordin
> science isn't possible. A basic self-replicating protocell is an incredible
> problem right now. People are working on it. And I really do hope they make
> progress but so far it doesn't look so hot.
>
> Then we have relatively little change for billions of years and bam, then th
> inexplicable explosion of diversty. Both of these facts are against what we
> should expect to find from the theory of starting simple and getting gradual
> more and more complex.
>
> AX>Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the ev
> AX>laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you sugge
>
> I would like to see further RnD with protocell construction. At some point w
> going to have to cave if we can't get one to poof into existence on it's own
> Building one in a lab will not do. Although building a self-replicating
> protocell would be a good and awesome step in the right direction, building
> only proves that inteligent beings can start life. And that is the definitio
> Intelegent Design.
>
> In order to really prove life started here by unguided means, we'll need to
> replicate it. That shouldn't be to tough seeing that life got started here
> practially as soon as the planet would support it.
You know, you cross up your facts so badly in your drive to provide a
pseudo-intellectual argument, that you lose all credibility.
We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that
assumes that life started here by some magical force.
---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net
|
