Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Cambrian and Precambrian life appear suddenly

And without any evidence of evolution. It's the thing that disproves the theory of evolution. Even Darwin admitted that. Why do people still believe. Religion and God aside
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
Don't theist always use the argument "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?"
@JimboSaturn I've never met one who doesn't. Upon this topic with this author, I have stated I find the universe full of chaos, that there is even order in chaos, but he always comes back to there is only order; never names the order, but one must suspect he means divine order. It would help if he named it that way, for me, not that it's going to change my own findings.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn but I specifically said besides that. A 150 year old theory based on the cell being a blob of plasma is so very inaccurate
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Axeroberts But why don't you use the same logic for science in this case, if you employ the same logic to religion?
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn I'm not religious. But logic dictates life started a different way than evolution because there will always be a starting point where there was no life previously
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Axeroberts Just because we don't know how life started exactly, doesn't disprove evolution; that is illogical.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn but it doesn't really show how things started
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Axeroberts Not yet, but that still doesn't disprove the theory. One can easily see the evolution of complex molecules like DNA.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn now the DNA is the show stopper. Even bacteria contains a half a million base pairs of CGAT. Even the best biochemists cannot duplicate this but without any interference it formed. And built up to 3.4 billion base pairs. This is harder to believe than some intelligent force
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Axeroberts We will a natural explanation like we have for every single other thing we have investigated, there is no need to bring in the supernatural at all. See Emosaur's fallacy below.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn that might be true but I said that aside. I think most people see life like a tree where everything stems from the trunk. But I see life as blades of grass. Each one individual and developing on their own. But most people believe that one thing kept mutating. This doesn't make logical sense. Unfortunately no one knows for sure
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Axeroberts What doesn't make sense about natural selection through adaptation over great periods of time? We are very sure evolution is the process that developed all life. Things mutating makes perfect sense and explains everything perfectly in the natural world. Only religious literalists don't believe in evolution.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn here is what some scientists say about the flagellar motor. I believe evolution to a point but not where one specie changes to another
[quote] It is perhaps not surprising then that such complexity and technology has been hijacked for use as proof, via intelligent design,[/quote]