View Single Post
  #23  
Old 12-08-2005, 04:33 PM
Sifmole Sifmole is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 0
Default Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's what evolution does look like if expressed in atheistic terms.-
(A) If we see life forms on earth, since there is no God and chance is ultimate, the fossil record must show a gradual development of life forms. The fossil record does not show a gradual development of life forms, therefore God does not exist and life evolved by chance.
This claim is neither scientific or unscientific, it is simply idiotic

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

A. We see life forms.
B. Life forms procreate.
C. When life forms procreate, the genetic makeup changes slightly.
D. Life forms with genetic makeups that are more conducive to survival will be more likely to pass on their genes than life forms with genetic makeups less conducive to survival.
What the hell happened to E?
F. Natural selection must occur.
G. Evolution must occur.

Wow F and G sound just like something taken on "faith"!


This comes entirely from observation of animal species. It doesn't matter whether they came from God, aliens, the big bang, or the FSM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural Selection and Evolution must occur? why? But yet, isn't it absolutely fabulous that no scientist has ever been able to force the evolution of even single-celled organisms? and there is absolutely no non-circumstantial evidence that any evolution has ever occured? Sure there are "this set of bones" and "that set of bones" that "look alot alike" so one must have evolved from the other or they must have evolved from a common ancestor -- why? "must" is a "faith" word, it is merely a substitute for "believe".

Oh and one-more-thing -- Natural Selection != Evolution.

I wrote in a post before, why does ET get a free-ride on that fact that it has proven untestable and is unverifiable? but ID is rightly ridiculed for that?
Reply With Quote