100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I actually like Conrad_73's comment about 'devolution'.
I think creation is more predisposed to devolving, than evolving. Rarely does anything get better or less-inbred without complications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe Its like this.. Science is the language ofGod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe Its like this.. Science is the language ofGod. Just one of his languages... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evolution is mostly based on factors on hand, living on earth, but i think it could be wrong to assume that life didn't start someplace else... the panspermia theory... even if the universe is as little as 14 billion years old, that still leaves 10 billion years for life to start other places as well, maybe a chunk of a blown up planet filled with microbes hit the earth 3 billion years ago... Oh I don't doubt the possibility that something MIGHT have come to Earth from space, it's low, but it's certainly there. Hell, we already know there are organisms right here on Earth who have proven to be capable of surviving the vacuum space, so maybe those are the evidence of panspermia. Just pointing out that Earth can produce life on it's own without any help. (I'm also more than certain that there is life out there in the universe already, the question is whether we'll discover any before going extinct) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evolution is mostly based on factors on hand, living on earth, but i think it could be wrong to assume that life didn't start someplace else... the panspermia theory... even if the universe is as little as 14 billion years old, that still leaves 10 billion years for life to start other places as well, maybe a chunk of a blown up planet filled with microbes hit the earth 3 billion years ago... Oh I don't doubt the possibility that something MIGHT have come to Earth from space, it's low, but it's certainly there. Hell, we already know there are organisms right here on Earth who have proven to be capable of surviving the vacuum space, so maybe those are the evidence of panspermia. Just pointing out that Earth can produce life on it's own without any help. (I'm also more than certain that there is life out there in the universe already, the question is whether we'll discover any before going extinct) i think it would very hard to exterminate the human race, kinda like cockroaches in that sense...7 billion strong, there is always some that will survive most all ELE's... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hard to say. Afterall, Earth already has what it takes to produce the basic units of life. I'm not saying your theory isn't possible, however Earth doesn't need any outside help to create life...theoretically speaking. In fact our planet probably had multiple "origins" of life, it's just that ours stuck around. As for memory in DNA...are you referring to behavioral evolution? I'm not sure if you really need trillions of years to develop something like that. not behavioral, but more of the complicated chemical balances that gives us our "life"... as different chemicals/radiation hinders our progress, our bodies adapt in different ways to survive, and is coded into the DNA for future of the species... kinda like the way vaccinations work for your body, but on a bigger timeline... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we are just the toys of ancient aliens who got bored.   its them cussed Aliens I tells ya! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually like Conrad_73's comment about 'devolution'. I think creation is more predisposed to devolving, than evolving. Rarely does anything get better or less-inbred without complications. i would disagree, to a point... if all life was predispositioned for devolution, life wouldn't have lasted for the billions of years it has... some maybe, but evolution says the smartest, strongest, and the best at adaptation live... the ones that don't die out |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who's to argue speed of degenerative process?
All is relative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Mon 02/23/15 06:58 PM
|
|
Who's to argue speed of degenerative process? All is relative. my argument would be the diversity of species now, and in the past... some do devolve, whales were once land creatures, and went back to the water, for the second time... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is one issue with this logic. The very concept of evolution assumes that evolution has a direction to go, and that whales returning to the seas is going backwards.
There is not particular path evolution take, rather it's simply a matter of whichever organisms and individuals within a species most capable of surviving a given environment will be the one who gets to pass their genes on. Returning to the seas isn't devolution, it's simply that the species is apparently having a better time surviving by becoming aquatic again. Granted I'd love to know the exact circumstances that lead to such an evolutionary path happening, and to have seen each transitional forms. as different chemicals/radiation hinders our progress, our bodies adapt in different ways to survive, and is coded into the DNA for future of the species I think we may be thinking of something similar, but may just have different terminologies for it. Care to give an example of what you mean? |
|
|
|
|
