| mhsillen said: In every other instance scientists would conclude that the odds are so astronomical, and I'm talking ridiculously high that they would discount it and would throw it out without another thought. This is false. We've already recreated early Earth-like conditions and created a range of biochemical components essential for life in a very short space of time. There has also been recent evidence of bacteria incorporating Arsenic in their DNA instead of Phosphorous suggesting it's possible for life to arise from a seperate batch of chemicals to those found on Earth. The odds are appearing much smaller. And scientists are so critical of their studies that they play devils advocate, trying in fact to disprove info so they can be very sure of there conclusions. But this doesn't happen in the study of evolution. It does and it has done. The theory of evolution proposed by Darwin has been adapted to the new evidence available over the last 100 years. Scientists were highly skeptical when the idea was first proposed but through evidence over the years it has been cemented as a full scientific theory. It's like numerous scientists question man made global warming but they are ridiculed if they don't follow the company line. I believe it is also true of those scientists who question the evolution. This is likely down to the sheer volume of evidence available. Global warming on the other hand doesn't have the same volume of data. No evolution is faith based just as the belief in a God . And atheists are also extremely arrogant. As it sounds like some on this post are ready to open a can on believers. Just as religious fanatics are judgmental Nice sterotyping. And no it isn't. The evidence is their, even if you choose to ignore it. the study of evolution is highly competitive science and it means a lot of prestige this has led to some faulty and outright lies on some of these studies. Not sure what you mean. Some examples would be nice. Usually if someone has outright lied in a journal then their science career is effectively over. And the thing that really gets me is the brain. It is capable of so much more info gathering and recording. But in our lifetime a small part gets used. Why would evolution design it like that. This is a myth. We use our full brain capacity, there is no evidence to suggest we don't. And the fact that scientist use the word design when referring to the wonders of the body and how evolution designed it. That is a contradiction Yes, scientists probably shouldn't use the word design when talking about biological components. |
There's some misinformation in your post (see comments).
