6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: + +
Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex (view source)
Revision as of 17:32, September 8, 2007
, 17:32, September 8, 2007→Protected
::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Actually do you have anything more compelling than a preferential objection to the idea that natural law and chance are responsible for the evolution of the universe? Not to be confused with biological evolution which is an actual science. If you do have more than a preferential objection I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to hear it. Otherwise unless you can prove the existence of an intelligent designer or prove that the universe could not have come into existence through chance acting upon natural processes you cannot claim that the idea of an intelligent deisgner is "more logical".
Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.
Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.