Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
No, they don't. Only Religion necessitates these ideas.
I think it's very plausible that we came from a comet or Asteroid collision, Amino acids are everywhere in the universe so i read, i think we are in exciting times for astrobiology.
Oh..so Atheism has 100% proof of what they think happend? ...didn't think so..it's all just theory.
Atheism and Religion have Belief in what happend and Faith when they say it..simples
Last edited:
Oh for the love of... Everything that is presented as Scientific Theory is fact. Everything else I admit that I don't know. There is no belief or faith in my position.
I'm writing a thesis on something similar. Well, it's about black holes and white holes, but still
"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings"
So not fact..just a Theory
Then you must have hope with out 100% proof."Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings"
So not fact..just a Theory
I didn't say Theory, I said SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I think you'll find the definitions different.
I am a degree level mathematics student, I think I know the difference thanks.
Troll
If a cheetah will always be a cheetah then how can it have been anything else in the past? Surely with this view there are no branches at all.
I am interested in an explanation for the radical changes as observed in the cambrian fossils. I don't expect anything to form overnight.
You have understood the first part of it, that slightly faster cheetahs will survive.
Well, what about cheetah branches that over time develop more ways to be faster? And these ones survive for being faster? Wing-like appendages grown from the shoulder blades would be a great way of keeping balance with speed, as well as enabling them to turn faster. If, over many generations, these are slowly developed, would you still call the animal a cheetah?
I would love to see this animal
Would be a scary sight for sure! I think this assumes too much here actually. Being faster may be one advantage that a given animal has, but if that animal were deaf then becoming faster mightn't be too helpful. What determines whether enhanced speed or enhanced hearing becomes the most desirable?
Also, it seems obvious that there are many more bad mutations that good. Aren't the chances actually incredible low that two related mutations can occur?
Why exactly? Just because you don't agree?
Last edited:
If you think about it, then being deaf wouldn't be passed on. So if 2 animals both have the capability for increased speed, yet one is deaf, the increased speed will be more likely to be passed on, but the deafness almost certainly wouldn't
And it's just Theory which ever way you look at it.
And you're a "degree level mathematics student" I hope you know that Mr Hawking's got things wrong now and then and he knows a bit more then you
If you think about it, then being deaf wouldn't be passed on. So if 2 animals both have the capability for increased speed, yet one is deaf, the increased speed will be more likely to be passed on, but the deafness almost certainly wouldn't
What if all the animals in a given species are deaf and slow? It appears that until the benefit of a series of mutations is evident then it won't be preserved.
For example, until it is determined that hearing will give a species an advantage, then why would any mutation be preserved for it's value. There would probably be more chance that bad mutations be preserved that good surely.
Branches? Like the domestic moggie or the lion? Do you think those cats are not related to a distant common ancestor of the cheetah?
As for the Cambrian Explosion, you'll need to find someone more knowledgeable as to not put their foot in it, which seems to be what most Creationist seem to love
What I do know is fossil records are as good as the fossils we have found, the Cambrian period (and times before) were a damn long time ago. That little fossil records exist before perhaps has a lot to do with that. Fossils are formed in a limited set of conditions. Climate change can also have a major hand in evolution (and the preservation of fossils or lack of). In increase in oxygen in the water/air due to plant activity would support larger life forms than were possible before. Being bigger sea beastie than your peers is a definite advantage when there is plenty of food about - being a faster sea beastie than the big sea beastie is an advantage, climbing out of the water that's full of beasties is an advantage etc.
Science challenges these questions until there is a better answer, and then it challenges that too
Have you read Harry Potter? Even if you don't believe it there is no need for that.
I'd assume with that certainty of opinion that you have conducted an in-depth analysis of the text?
There exists a number of assumptions in Science.