by Olaf » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 14:46:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es I agree evolution is "hilariously farcical", anyone who believes everything they see came from nothing certainly fits into that category - But even when you examine the two beliefs, and let me emphasize they are both simply beliefs because neiher is proven, and evolution has been propogated by far more lies and hoax's that Christianity.
Back to my point - When you examine the two beliefs:
Evolution states complex life came from nothing.
Creationism states life and all matter was created.
Which is more "hilariously farcical" ?
Sorry dude, I don't follow, can you clarify ?
Um, I'm pretty sure the 'Theory of Evolution' does NOT state that life came from nothing. I believe the overall idea is that it is unknown how life got started, not that it was created from nothing. It seems downright intellectually dishonest that you make this claim while making your arguement. One must note the fact that it is clear there are species mutations. These mutations will help or hinder and individual creature within a given environment, and in turn, its ability to reproduce and make more like itself. It also seems clear to me that the most change within species populations will occur when there are more modified environmental factors that favor different charactristics.
From Wikipedia:
Origin of life
For more details on this topic, see Origin of life and RNA world hypothesis.
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[121] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[122] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[123][124] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[125] and the assembly of simple cells.[126]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life
Further 'origin of life' discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
Note that none of these theories are called 'Evolution's Theory of the Origin of Life' or 'Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Life'.
More:
Origin of species in a nutshell (Darwin's) also from WIKI:
Theory in a nutshell
Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:[3]
Species have great fertility. They have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
Populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.
An implicit struggle for survival ensues.
In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
Much of this variation is inheritable.
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, the creations of new varieties, and ultimately, new species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species
Olafr