scitsofreaky Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Life is based on spiritual advancement and divine moral rules, not evolution. Actually, life is based on carbon. Thank you. God, I thought I was losing my mind seeing how everyone else was responding (good responses, but not really addressing what I saw as the biggest problem). Urban Monk, that is frankly a really stupid couple of sentences. That first one doesn't make any sense at all, unless by "life" you mean human life, because I'm pretty sure amoebae don't advance through "divine morality." And the rest of it Han took care of nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I'm not convinced that organisms need to be based on carbon. But that is a bit of an aside. Mostly I just wanted to say hey to Scitsofreaky. Hey man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I'm not convinced that organisms need to be based on carbon. But that is a bit of an aside. Mostly I just wanted to say hey to Scitsofreaky. Hey man. Hey LR! Yeah, I don't think life needs to be based on carbon, but the only life we know of is. One thought on the subject of "half evolved" animals is that I'm not sure that humans are really able to classify something as half-x, especially when dealing with taxonomy and phylogenics. When we classify something we are forced to put it in a category, we cannot put it half way in one group. Sometimes new groupings are created, but usually not without characteristics to define the group, exclusive of other groups. A half dinosaur, pretending it would exist, would not have characteristics to set it apart, so we would be forced to put it into an existing group (something that would probably be fought over ad nauseam). Creationists would then use this to argue that the animal is not a half dinosaur. Yeah, that was just bugging me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Hey LR! Yeah, I don't think life needs to be based on carbon, but the only life we know of is. Right. As far as I know, science hasn't discovered any evidence which would preclude a different type of life arising elsewhere in the universe, but so far everything we've managed to discover is carbon-based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Just to let everyone know I learned a lot from this thread even though Urban Monk apparently didn't. Your work wasn't in vain. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Life is based on spiritual advancement and divine moral rules, not evolution. Actually, life is based on carbon. Damn. Nice woody. +1 SMACK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 [ But there is no evidence that life completely stops after death. There isn't even any proof that evolution is true. Its just a theory. A science book can tell u anything just like u say the Bible Or Koran can tell us anything The very definition of "theory" states that it must be supported by multiply lines of evidence. By calling it a theory you have acknowledged that there is supporting evidence. Also, theories must be falsifiable. That means that it must be possible to find evidence that the theory is incorrect. None has been found that refutes evolution. All the evidence we find coincides with the evolutionary model. Entire fields of study like genetics and molecular biology that were unheard of in Darwins time, support the evolutionary model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Saying that any theory in science is "just a theory" is just plain silly. In science, Laws describe things. Theories explain them. The Law of Gravity is the description of gravity. Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job of explaining gravity and Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a much better job of explaining it. These explanations are theories and will always be theories. They cannot be changed into laws because laws are different things. Laws describe, theories explain. Theory is the ultimate goal in science. Theory is the well-documented, well-supported, well-substantiated explanation. Evolution is not "just" a theory. Evolution is triumphantly a theory. A major part of scientific theories is their ability to make predictions, and if the predictions are verified, the theory is supported. If predictions are refuted, then back to square one. "Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory One that "hates god" is a theist by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts