evolution isn't a theory of those other things. it's not meant to explain them. also we do have a pretty good idea of how the earth itself formed. yes nobody knows at this point how life or the universe started (or if the universe "started").
Interesting. I don't follow catholicism closely (or at all, in the other sense of the word), so I didn't realize they were so flexible on the subject. Surprisingly (to me), much more flexible than some posters here. barfo
Certainty that there is life anywhere but on Earth is wishful thinking/self-delusion. There's no objective evidence there is (the opposite is true based upon all measurements).
That's not evolution, that's the origin of species. Big difference. Evolution can be observed and has been observed many times. The origin of species cannot be proven or observed with our current knowledge and technology. Evolution happens, there's not any question about it. The problem is the Religious Right tries to skew the lines and pretend like all evolution and the origin of species are the same.
Very true. There may be, but there's certainly no justification for certainty that life does or does not exist elsewhere.
sure, but i doubt anyone here would claim to be certain about that while something like half the posters here seem to be certain there's a higher power. the fact that life exists on earth IS objective evidence that there is a significant probability life exists elsewhere. if you're trying to draw a parallel with lack of evidence for a higher power it's not there.
not clear if you're talking about the origin of species (the forms life takes) or the origin of life itself. evolution is definitionally about how species originate, but not necessarily an explanation of how life itself originated. the origin of life itself is technically called abiogenesis.
Though I don't believe in such things, I have no problem with others beliefs. I find the hypocritical aspects amusing. One might say it's evidence God exists, too. Or that it's evidence that life is incredibly rare. Or that it's so abundant (billions of species here, after all) that surely we should be hearing something in the skies from something within 25 light years of us (there's LOTS of stars within that distance).
I was referring to The Origin of Species paper by Darwin, which is his theory of how humans came to be. The origin of life is a whole other manner, as is the theory of evolution. They are all separate. The origin of species relies on the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. You know that, but judging by Shooters comments, he didn't. Poking holes in the origin of species is easy, but it doesn't expose any problems with evolution. The Religious Right has succeeded in defining the two separate theories as if they were one. Don't change the definition of marriage, but do change the definition of evolution.
you mean you would find it amusing if any atheists here had actually said they were certain life exists elsewhere. nobody has. one would be wrong. the fact that life exist itself doesn't differentiate in any way between competing hypothesis for how/why it exists. well you just narrowed it to intelligent life, which may in fact be relatively rare based on evidence. there have been millions of species on earth but only 1 capable of sending signals into space.
Well, it's not like when two amoebas love each other, out comes a human baby. If it's true, it would have been a line of single celled organisms to multi celled organisms to sponges to worms to vertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to large rodents to primates to homini to modern man. Of course, this would have happened over the period of hundreds of millions of years, and that is hard when you don't believe in millions of years.
still confusing. "on the origin of species" by darwin WAS about evolution by natural selection in general - a theory of how all species including humans came to be. the current theory of evolution is just a more advanced/specific version of what darwin started. evolution is definitionally a theory of how species originiate.
Evolving from an amoeba to a human being in order to "enhance our chances of survival"? Are you kidding? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? There is no example anywhere in the animal kingdom of one species turning into another; i.e., amoeba > human. There are only examples of slight changes in the size of a bird's beak, or the color of feathers, etc. Everything else is theory.
Uhm, no, Denny, they aren't. They weren't meant to relate to the subject at hand, except to serve as trivial examples of different subjects. My point, if the example somehow confused it, was that the origin of the universe and the evolution of life are two different topics. Hell, even the creationists agree with that - first god created the universe, and then he created man. He didn't do them simultaneously. Why the hell not, if he's all-powerful? Don't know. Edit: I missed the "heh" the first time around. So maybe you were just kidding. I'm not sure now. barfo
nothing personal, but all you're doing here is demonstrating your ignorance of what the theory of evolution actually is.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
