Theory of evolution vs creationism

[wahaha]

Are you sure you're not Boris?

 

As far as I know, boris has never left his mommy. I however have been around the world to see for myself.

 

It's common knowlege that milk from COWS has growth hormones in it, whether natural or artificial now. There's plenty of dispute on this matter, and I believe warnings. Milk is not needed after infancy.

 

You remind me of the American preachers who state that evolution is crock because:

 

But I do argue with the bible. The flood of noah is one. I don't see it happening; some arab guy and his animals repopulating the earth. How long ago was that now... evolution played what part?

 

Evolution is an ongoing process, it doesn't stop.. yet I don't see any humans OR animals evolving (growing another arm to cope with some matter) or getting smarter. They can't prevent their own exctinction. They only seem to show brains when challenged in a lab setting.

 

I found an interesting website, but being 10 pages long was a little much for me right now. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=69&m=11

[wahaha]

That's a link to an article written by Religious-minded persons

 

I don't think you could have read it in 2 seconds lol..

 

I think you'll notice the references at the bottom. It doesn't matter who wrote it as long as they are citing from known and respected works.

[quosego]

Dude, you're not going to be old enough to notice evolution.....

 

Unless you're planning to get very old... (like a few million years)

 

But I do argue with the bible. The flood of noah is one. I don't see it happening; some arab guy and his animals repopulating the earth. How long ago was that now... evolution played what part?

 

What do you mean by this part, that noah and his animals populated the earth and evolution doesn't exist in this explanation?

 

Or that the Noah story didn't happen....

 

 

 

[GorunNova]

... on the microbial level, evolution is going on visibly all the time. Every time a new strain of disease comes up that's immune to medication, that's evolution at work... and how many times has that happened in the last century? Quite often...

 

... and that's FAR from the only example of evolution that has happened in our lifetimes...

[quosego]

... on the microbial level' date=' evolution is going on visibly all the time. Every time a new strain of disease comes up that's immune to medication, that's evolution at work... and how many times has that happened in the last century? Quite often...[/quote']

 

Damn I forgot that..... Nice, this about proves everything :)

[Ruk]

I'm calling ya on this one

 

I'm calling you back. Most of the errors in the paper you posted are addressed at the Talk Origin's website: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

Scroll down to the Geochronology section and browse the following links:

 

CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions

CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.

CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.

CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.

(see also CF200: Radiometric dating)

CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.

CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.

CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.

CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.

CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.

CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.

CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.

CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.

CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.

CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.

CD013.1. K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old.

CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.

CD014.1. Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old.

CD015. Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.

CD016. The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.

CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.

CD031. KBS Tuff shows the flaws of radiometric dating.

 

The whole young-earth argument (6000 years or less) is so fatally flawed its ridiculous. Tree ring, ice core, geology, genetics and myriad other fields all correlate to a much older earth.

 

Fully documented tree ring data already goes back far more than 6K years, with continuous tree rings records of more than 10,000 years from germany.

 

And those correlate to ice core samples as well. And then ice core samples puch our chronology back even further, with an unbroken history found in the cores going back over 160,000 years old.

 

And of course scientists know the Earth is far far older than that using other chronological tools.

[wahaha]

that noah and his animals populated the earth and evolution doesn't exist in this explanation?

 

Or that the Noah story didn't happen....

 

Noah might have had a flood, but it wasn't world wide. There are certain animals that MUST eat continuously to survive. If there was such a horrific flood, they would all be dead, yet here they are still living in this day and time.

 

If the animals that depended on those food sources couldn't eat anymore, what did they turn to? I don't think noah had enough space to keep all the animals, PLUS their daily food requirements. Especially considering that most animals would have ripped him apart if he came near them.

 

Another thing you have to ask is, if the world is so old, wouldn't there be millions of dinosaur or human bones and skeletons to be found, possibly buried beside their trinkets? Yet very few dino and "neanderthal man" skeletons have been found.

 

on the microbial level' date=' evolution is going on visibly all the time. Every time a new strain of disease comes up that's immune to medication, that's evolution at work[/quote']

 

Is that really evolution, or is it adaptation.. also viruses destroy, they don't create. That's not a good point for evolution being a good thing.

[wahaha]

Scroll down to the Geochronology section and browse the following links:

 

This isn't going to get solved.

 

The fact is, until someone finds a ziplock baggy full of animal parts with the words "i was here, 50,000 BC" written on it in perm marker, there is no reliable way to date anything that old. And just because the person was there that long ago, doesn't mean those animal parts or rocks aren't older or younger than he was.

 

Wired magazine had some scientist say that tree rings only go back 12,000 yrs. I have no idea what trees they were using, but the redwoods in CA are only 6,000 yrs old.

 

There was a sign in carlsbad caves, it said the formations in there were 250 million yrs old, then 7 million, then the sign was removed all together in 1988.

 

If people can't agree how old the planet is by any scientific means available today, there goes the arguement that people evolved over millions of years.

[wahaha]

You also have to ask the question, why are humans born as helpless babies? Without the protection and nutrient of the parent we would be dead in a matter of minutes from the elements or other animals. Why are humans so helpless in this fashion when some animals are ready to attack from the get go? We don't just spring fully grown from a pile of flotsam, ready to take care of ourselves. We need to be nurtured, or else we don't develop properly mentally. It is the same fact for a lot of other animals as well.

 

It takes a desire, forethought to procreate. It doesn't happen by chance, 2 people accidentally getting together. Otherwise you'd have people trying to make babies with sheep lol. I'm sure there're some who've tried..

[TetsuoShima]

As far as specific numbers in science are concerned, there is NO SUCH THING (unless you're talking pure mathematics(which is a purely theoretical science, so it doesn't concern this discussion)), everything else has to be accompanied by an error margin and before that is even accepted as truth, there have to be other experiments and groups that come to the exact same conclusion. Only then something is considered to be truth and only for so long untill somebody else finds a better way to do things. In view of this, there really is no absolute truth, only probability!

 

So, it it extremely probable that cabon dating works just fine in most cases concerning dating things that hold carbon within a certain age margin.

 

As for evolution: the way the poll is constructed, it clearly indicates that we're talking about how things came to be, you place creationism opposite to evolution, so if you vote for evolution, that means that you believe that evolution explains the entire process of life beginning and evolving into what it now is.

 

Of course, you can say, that is not what evolution says it is, but then it is not a fair poll, since one thing explains changes and the other explains the creation of things, which is something entirely different. You either take it all the way, or you don't take it at all (unless you're joking of course).

 

btw. Didn't Darwin introduce the evolution theory as a means to explain exactly that what you're now saying it doesn't? If I recall correctly, the book was named: "the Origin of Species", that name alone says it all (I never reade it of course and I'm no biologist either, so I apologise if I'm wrong). I would presume there was some 'evolution' in this theory over the years also, but is this evolution a 'devolution' (the theorie explains less now) or a revolution (the theory has been adapted to be in line with scientific/archeological discoveries).

 

If you take evolution as the theory that explains changes in the DNA/RNA of living things, and alters them slowly to have the environment create 'the survival of the fittest', then I'm inclined to believe (or rather, I think that is correct), since there is a lot of evidence to support this. If you take it so far as to support "the Origin of Species", then I do not believe it, since there is no concrete evidence I know of that explains the beginning. Sure there are theories of theories of theories, but that's all they are theories, as long as there is no vast amount of evidence to support it. So then in essence it's not more real then a story told by a sci-fi writer!

 

Neither is there any evidence to support Genesis.

 

Hence I stick with my previous conclusion: OTHER!

(meaning none of the above)

 

Basically everybody who votes for evolution is following the same line of thought the creationists are, they 'believe', they don't question! One believes in God, the other believes in science, which in turn can be argued, that if you 'believe' in it, it too can represent a God and thus a religion!

[Beawulf]

very good point, the theory of evolution doesn't explain how life came to be. I'm not aware of a widely accepted theory outside of religion that can explain it with a degree of certainty (excuse my ignorance).

 

 

I guess the poll options, as I had originally picked them, should be considered as

 

1. evolution/big bang = life & universe occurred without guidance from a higher being

2. creationism = the world, universe, man and everything was made by god in 6 days

3. intelligent design = life & universe developed similar to scientific theory, but by god's hand.

 

I apologise if this oversimplifies things for people, but this is an unbelievably complex topic. I included the 'other' option for this reason, for those who didn't want to be constrained by the other options.

 

 

edit: Also, for those that vote for intelligent design and creationism, I would really like to know: do you think that life exists on other planet in the universe?

[GorunNova]

The funny thing is... intelligent design lends itself to an advanced alien creator as easily as it does to any supernatural God... but unfortunately falls into the 'I can't conceive it could be otherwise, so that's how it is' fallacy.

[Ruk]

Another thing you have to ask is, if the world is so old, wouldn't there be millions of dinosaur or human bones and skeletons to be found, possibly buried beside their trinkets? Yet very few dino and "neanderthal man" skeletons have been found.

 

Who's to say there aren't millions of fossils still out there?

 

A) we've only been really looking for fossils this past century, and thus far have found quite a number of them:

 

Lubenow (1992) found that there were fossils from almost 4,000 hominid individuals catalogued as of 1976. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals, 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, 500 Neanderthals, and more (Handprint 1999). Foley (2004) lists some of the more prominent fossils.

 

B) Most things don't get fossilized, but simply decay.

 

However you obviously didn't read my link above (typical of those who oppose evolution... they don't know the research): This addresses your concern about "millions" of fossils.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

 

 

Wired magazine had some scientist say that tree rings only go back 12,000 yrs. I have no idea what trees they were using, but the redwoods in CA are only 6,000 yrs old.

 

Tree ring data doesn't come from a single tree that is 10000 years old. What they have discovered is that the ring patterns match up for trees in the same area as droughts and the like create historical records that all the trees in an area record. Thus by looking at some lumber taken from an area long before, they can figure out when the tree lived, and then push back the data even further using its rings.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/tree.html

 

the theory of evolution doesn't explain how life came to be. I'm not aware of a widely accepted theory outside of religion that can explain it with a degree of certainty

 

The problem is, religion doesn't add any explaination at all. All it does is actually create just another unknown variable. If the universe required a creator to be born, then where did the creator come from? Why is it ok to believe a creator can exist eternally or come from nothing but people are unable to concieve of a universe with the same properties?

 

Basically everybody who votes for evolution is following the same line of thought the creationists are, they 'believe', they don't question!

 

Having come from a conservative baptist upbringing and being raised with creationist ideology, I know this doesn't apply to me. It was the massive amounts of evidence the sciences have that convinced me that it and not the Bible was correct on the issue. Scientists don't just spit out their beliefs because its what they are taught though. The evidence is out there supporting every idea and theory. And we are more than happy to change our views as soon as someone shows us some evidence that throws those theories into chaos.

[Antipodean]

The terminology largely used so far is a misonomer. - Evolution is NOT a theory. Evolution is rather an ongoing observable process.

 

Further, the term "Intelligent Design" has just been Creationism's attempt to rebrand itself, its proponents having seriously lost the battle last time around and having revealed themselves to be a bunch of kooks with their hand over their ears.

 

 

One question though, which I'd like to ask thems as advocate an age of the universe in the 10's of thousands of years is, have you guys ever looked up at the stars?

 

There's rather a lot of them. Thousands of galaxys in fact. And this all observable.

 

Now all of these galaxys and stars have mass. In fact, if they were too close together, Basic Newtonian physics is all you'd need to tell you that the gravitational attraction involved would cause the whole lot to collapse on itself - For example if thousands of galaxys (each of which being home to MILLIONS if not BILLIONS OF STARS) were to be squished together in a space of 10 to 20 thousand light years accross - a light year being the distance that light can travel in a year.

 

Basically any model of a universe so bloody young, but containing the amount of matter we KNOW exists, well it would all just collapse in on itself.

 

Even if you're a god botherer, you should realise that if there was a creator, then the universe was their primary text and DEFINATELY a more reliable source in itself then some dead guy's shoddy interpretation of the bible.

 

 

[Ruk]

Basically any model of a universe so bloody young, but containing the amount of matter we KNOW exists, well it would all just collapse in on itself.

 

Don't try rationalizing with them. One benefit of relying upon hocus pocus to create the universe is that it can be created in any fashion you wish. After all, I've known many a creationist who believes that God just put the fossils there to make the earth look old. You can't argue with such people.

[Antipodean]

I just checked it - OUR OWN GALAXY, being just one of roughly 25 billion galaxies, is 100,000 light years accross. We know this based on the light we can see on earth - the stars. Which means that that light, from stars at the edges of the Milky Way Galaxy, took at least 100,000 years to reach earth for us to observe it.

[Ruk]

Which means that that light, from stars at the edges of the Milky Way Galaxy, took at least 100,000 years to reach earth for us to observe it.

 

Not quite. Our system isn't at the edge of the arm, but only 28,000 light years from the core. Thus it only took 78,000 light years for the light from stars at the opposite edge to reach us.

 

http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s2.htm

 

But again of course creationists will just say that either a) God created the light already on its way or b) lightspeed somehow was faster in the past (nevermind how this screws up everything else in the universe)

[GorunNova]

Actually, I read about a non-constant speed of light theory... and it turned out to simply be an alternate view on time dilation with no real effect on the age of the universe.

[GorunNova]

As far as specific numbers in science are concerned, there is NO SUCH THING (unless you're talking pure mathematics(which is a purely theoretical science, so it doesn't concern this discussion)), everything else has to be accompanied by an error margin and before that is even accepted as truth, there have to be other experiments and groups that come to the exact same conclusion. Only then something is considered to be truth and only for so long untill somebody else finds a better way to do things. In view of this, there really is no absolute truth, only probability!

So, you're saying that if something is 99% certain, one should discount it as 'mere probability' because it's not 100% certain? That sounds kind of... dumb.

 

As for evolution: the way the poll is constructed, it clearly indicates that we're talking about how things came to be, you place creationism opposite to evolution, so if you vote for evolution, that means that you believe that evolution explains the entire process of life beginning and evolving into what it now is.

 

I voted for evolution not because it explains 'the entire process of life beginning and evolving into what it now is', but because the rest don't give any scientifically valid view of -anything-. Intelligent design claims some known facts don't exist when they do, and creationism is based solely on the authority of a book that validates itself (i.e. circular proof, which is invalid) and the fact that a lot of people want to believe that what that book says is true.

 

btw. Didn't Darwin introduce the evolution theory as a means to explain exactly that what you're now saying it doesn't? If I recall correctly, the book was named: "the Origin of Species", that name alone says it all (I never reade it of course and I'm no biologist either, so I apologise if I'm wrong). I would presume there was some 'evolution' in this theory over the years also, but is this evolution a 'devolution' (the theorie explains less now) or a revolution (the theory has been adapted to be in line with scientific/archeological discoveries).

I take it you haven't read 'the Origin of Species', or you wouldn't be saying this ^^'... What you're saying is on par with saying, "I don't like physics, because it's got a funny name. Physics... sounds like the noise pop makes."

 

Darwin only explains the process by which one species becomes two, and his 'Origin of Species' talks about how this happens through artificial means (breeding) AND natural means.

 

If you take evolution as the theory that explains changes in the DNA/RNA of living things, and alters them slowly to have the environment create 'the survival of the fittest', then I'm inclined to believe (or rather, I think that is correct), since there is a lot of evidence to support this. If you take it so far as to support "the Origin of Species", then I do not believe it, since there is no concrete evidence I know of that explains the beginning. Sure there are theories of theories of theories, but that's all they are theories, as long as there is no vast amount of evidence to support it. So then in essence it's not more real then a story told by a sci-fi writer!

1) "Survival of the Fittest" is not an accurate description of what evolution is. Evolution is simply the description of the process where organisms gradually adapt over generations to fit their environments. Those that are better suited tend to breed more and pressure their predecessors out of that niche, true, but quite often it's more of a matter of beneficial adaptions spreading through the gene pool, 'upgrading' the whole population over time. If two groups are seperated, they gradually differ until they become two species. There is no requirement for the 'fittest' to eliminate the 'unfit', although that does happen if the adaptive mutations are particularly large over a short period of time. To say otherwise shows a rather noticeable lack of understanding about the theory behind evolution.

 

There is a LOT of evidence for this, from microbiology through the fossil record and over to the studies of seperated populations of various species!

 

Neither is there any evidence to support Genesis.

You are (falsely) assuming that there is no evidence for the process of evolution... ^^'

Hence I stick with my previous conclusion: OTHER!

(meaning none of the above)

If you have a better theory, why not explore it and come up with good tests and evidence for it? Otherwise, well... it's your own beliefs... but don't expect anyone else to accept them ^^

 

Basically everybody who votes for evolution is following the same line of thought the creationists are, they 'believe', they don't question! One believes in God, the other believes in science, which in turn can be argued, that if you 'believe' in it, it too can represent a God and thus a religion!

So, you are claiming that a set of beliefs based on a cyclically 'self-validating' book and an appeal to popularity are on equal grounds to a meticulously researched and empirically validated theory? By nature, ALL scientific theories are continually questioned and tested... to say otherwise is simply inaccurate. You have some strange criteria, my friend...

 

However, there is an important distinction. Scientists aren't saying, "This is it, this is the final answer." Science is looking to improve its viewpoint. For instance, tehre are currently competing views on evolution. They include, but are not limited to:

Actually, both those and all the other possible selection pressures are all considered, plus whatever new ones arise. There is no one selection pressure that overrides all others... they all factor in. The only arguing is pretty much about how important the various different factors are... when it's probably entirely dependant on the particular case and any of them could come into ascendance given varying circumstances.

 

The sexual/asexual example you mentioned has been explained by observing species in similar environments that have both sexual and asexual varients... the sexual ones were far more resistant to transmitting parasites to their offspring than the asexual ones... a clear advantage.

[TetsuoShima]

Before I continue, I apologise for this long post, but there was a lot I had to reply to... :)

 

However' date=' there is an important distinction. Scientists aren't saying, "This is it, this is the final answer." Science is looking to improve its viewpoint. For instance, tehre are currently competing views on evolution.[/quote']

 

Agreed, that's why I think that the chances of science for eventually finding a 'real' satisfactory answer to the question how life came to be, are a lot better than those of the creationists, who are basically saying: "we already have the answer". It is a very big gamble on their part, but that is why they call it a belief... :)

 

 

 

As far as specific numbers in science are concerned, there is NO SUCH THING (unless you're talking pure mathematics(which is a purely theoretical science, so it doesn't concern this discussion)), everything else has to be accompanied by an error margin and before that is even accepted as truth, there have to be other experiments and groups that come to the exact same conclusion. Only then something is considered to be truth and only for so long untill somebody else finds a better way to do things. In view of this, there really is no absolute truth, only probability!

So, you're saying that if something is 99% certain, one should discount it as 'mere probability' because it's not 100% certain? That sounds kind of... dumb.

 

You should not 'discount' it as 'mere probability', but you should realise that it is only that, probability. That is nothing to be discounted, but it is something you have to keep in mind, quantum physics for example is based for a large part on probabilities, yet I would certainly NOT discount it, but when you're using it, you need to keep in mind that that is what you're dealing with: probability! All science is based on it really, if we say a theory is 100% certain, then this means it cannot be improved and in the end all science will stop! There allways is the possibily that you're/something is wrong and usually wrong does not mean completely wrong, but it rather means that there is room for improvement. :)

 

 

As for evolution: the way the poll is constructed, it clearly indicates that we're talking about how things came to be, you place creationism opposite to evolution, so if you vote for evolution, that means that you believe that evolution explains the entire process of life beginning and evolving into what it now is.

 

I voted for evolution not because it explains 'the entire process of life beginning and evolving into what it now is', but because the rest don't give any scientifically valid view of -anything-. Intelligent design claims some known facts don't exist when they do, and creationism is based solely on the authority of a book that validates itself (i.e. circular proof, which is invalid) and the fact that a lot of people want to believe that what that book says is true.

 

Well, in that case, I think you have a 'belief' in science. Why? Because science does not explain how life came to be, sure there have been proposals and theories, but no actual meaningfull and reproducable experiments.

 

Beawulf said in his explanation of that option what he meant with it and basically he said if you vote for 'evolution', that means you vote for life having evolved and being created only by purely natural causes without any willfully guided intent.

 

Since there is no evidence for the most crucial part: the true start of life and how this occured and since this is implied in the vote, that you think it's impossible for 'an intelligence'/God to have originated life, you are voting through a belief-system, not a scientific system. How strange this may seem, but since you're not voting with evidence, it's clear...

 

Pure logic: if you need A (evolution) and B (beginning) to get C and you know A is true but you don't know B, C is a possibility, not a certainty!

 

 

btw. Didn't Darwin introduce the evolution theory as a means to explain exactly that what you're now saying it doesn't? If I recall correctly, the book was named: "the Origin of Species", that name alone says it all (I never reade it of course and I'm no biologist either, so I apologise if I'm wrong). I would presume there was some 'evolution' in this theory over the years also, but is this evolution a 'devolution' (the theorie explains less now) or a revolution (the theory has been adapted to be in line with scientific/archeological discoveries).

I take it you haven't read 'the Origin of Species', or you wouldn't be saying this ^^'... What you're saying is on par with saying, "I don't like physics, because it's got a funny name. Physics... sounds like the noise pop makes."

 

I take it you didn't read my reply very carefully, I actually SAID that I didn't read it and I apologised for it if I had the notion wrong, which appearently, I did. But that doesn't really matter, since it was just a sidenote which i wasn't sure of... :)

 

Darwin only explains the process by which one species becomes two' date=' and his 'Origin of Species' talks about how this happens through artificial means (breeding) AND natural means.[/quote']

 

And I don't dispute that at all, there surely is enough evidence to support this.

 

 

If you take evolution as the theory that explains changes in the DNA/RNA of living things, and alters them slowly to have the environment create 'the survival of the fittest', then I'm inclined to believe (or rather, I think that is correct), since there is a lot of evidence to support this. If you take it so far as to support "the Origin of Species", then I do not believe it, since there is no concrete evidence I know of that explains the beginning. Sure there are theories of theories of theories, but that's all they are theories, as long as there is no vast amount of evidence to support it. So then in essence it's not more real then a story told by a sci-fi writer!

1) "Survival of the Fittest" is not an accurate description of what evolution is. Evolution is simply the description of the process where organisms gradually adapt over generations to fit their environments. Those that are better suited tend to breed more and pressure their predecessors out of that niche, true, but quite often it's more of a matter of beneficial adaptions spreading through the gene pool, 'upgrading' the whole population over time. If two groups are seperated, they gradually differ until they become two species. There is no requirement for the 'fittest' to eliminate the 'unfit', although that does happen if the adaptive mutations are particularly large over a short period of time. To say otherwise shows a rather noticeable lack of understanding about the theory behind evolution.

 

Well, basically that's saying the same thing, since 'survival of the fittest' can just as easily be applied to the genome as to the species if you're openminded... :)

 

There is a LOT of evidence for this' date=' from microbiology through the fossil record and over to the studies of seperated populations of various species![/quote']

 

Well, since you were quoting me, I'm inclined to defend, but I really can't since I never said otherwise, so I guess I'll just support... :)

 

 

Neither is there any evidence to support Genesis.

You are (falsely) assuming that there is no evidence for the process of evolution... ^^'

 

No, I think you misunderstood what I was arguing: I said there was no sufficient evidence for any theory explaining the beginning of life, there is plenty of evidence for the process of evolution itself, but this process itself still does not explain the most crucial part of the true question: how life came to be!

 

 

Hence I stick with my previous conclusion: OTHER!

(meaning none of the above)

If you have a better theory, why not explore it and come up with good tests and evidence for it? Otherwise, well... it's your own beliefs... but don't expect anyone else to accept them ^^

 

I have absolutely no idea of how life came to be, it could be God, it could be plain chemistry or it might even be nobody thought of yet, but I do know that neither option is proven! So I cannot vote for one or the other, since I only see truth in proof! I do expect any real scientist to acknowledge the fact that if they are voting for evolution (in the way Beawulf intended), that they are actually saying that they are basically treating science as a belief. This was probably not that persons intention, but because they are voting for something that has no evidence to support it, they are not following the scientific way.

 

Basically what I'm advocating here is that if you don't know if option A is valid and you don't know if option B is valid, then neither is valid untill proven otherwise.

 

As I said, I have no other solution and have no intention of even trying to find one (and trying to prove it), maybe one of the solutions allready available is correct... Who knows... All I know, is that there is no sufficient proof and I'm perfectly happy with acknowledging that fact and I don't think people should vote for one they find more likely, because then you're just gambling and 'believing' in something. In my book, proof has more value than 'belief'. THAT's why I voted other, not because I belief it can't be any of the other options mentioned, but because none of the options mentioned has sufficient proof to support it.

 

 

So far for my 'defence'. Hope you liked it... :D