Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thats the entire premise of evolution....that it started life. I propose a different scenario where a master engineer created the life forms and put into action evolution to facilitate natural selection. I see this signature all around me everyday.I never claimed "no other explanation" was proof. Since there is no proof evolution started the process your logic fails miserably and cuts the throat of your own argument. That was sheer ignorance.Here is what happened. Someone or something created the first life forms. From there evolution took over. Evolution is already proven. If you look at all life and even non-life there is the unmistakable signature of a master engineer.
That's a ridiculous argument for creationism. "Unmistakable signature of a master engineer"? That either implies that this "signature" is known for something else, which it's not because there is nothing else like the beginning of life, or, and this is really why ignorant people make statements like this, there is no other explanation. Guess what, no other explanation does not constitute proof. Here's why. If anybody offers another explanation then the "no other explanation" argument automatically fails. And evolution is another explanation. Major fail!
I never claimed evolution started the process, actually I don't believe anybody has ever claimed evolution started life. I am simply playing devils advocate to your eloquently worded, yet meritless statement of unmistakable signature of a master engineer. So you tell me, since you made the statement, where else have you see this unmistakable signature?
There is no evidence to suggest evolution started the process either. There is only evidence that it occurs as a result of life existing. Someone started the process. Its not that hard to figure out and you didnt have to be there to see it.There is no evidence to suggest "someone wrote that blueprint" as you put it it. Your falling into the age old trap of "I don't understand... Therefore God".its by implication. No one can prove "god" exists but its plain life follows a common blueprint as well as inanimate objects. Someone wrote that blueprint.That isn't unmistakably the "signature of a master engineer" as you put it. Unless you have some way of linking this observation to said "master engineer".Binary. Everything is binary and fractal in nature.Can you show this unmistakeable signature to us? Surely there are many pictures specifically of this signature we can compare...?Here is what happened. Someone or something created the first life forms. From there evolution took over. Evolution is already proven. If you look at all life and even non-life there is the unmistakable signature of a master engineer.
.
It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.Ignorance in the face of facts, is a problem. Just letting it go isn't the answer. These same people continue to have kids, and teach them the same creationist nonsense.Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.No. It isn't okay.
Educators need to do better.
Why? What difference does it make if somebody doesn't accept evolution? Sounds like you just want to argue, but the reality is that there are plenty of successful and productive people who do not accept evolution, and renaming or giving it another label is not going to change their mind. Further more, there are many successful and productive people who accept strict creationism. You're trying to fix a problem where one doesn't exist.
So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.Ignorance in the face of facts, is a problem. Just letting it go isn't the answer. These same people continue to have kids, and teach them the same creationist nonsense.Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.No. It isn't okay.
Educators need to do better.
Why? What difference does it make if somebody doesn't accept evolution? Sounds like you just want to argue, but the reality is that there are plenty of successful and productive people who do not accept evolution, and renaming or giving it another label is not going to change their mind. Further more, there are many successful and productive people who accept strict creationism. You're trying to fix a problem where one doesn't exist.
So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.Ignorance in the face of facts, is a problem. Just letting it go isn't the answer. These same people continue to have kids, and teach them the same creationist nonsense.Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.
Educators need to do better.
Why? What difference does it make if somebody doesn't accept evolution? Sounds like you just want to argue, but the reality is that there are plenty of successful and productive people who do not accept evolution, and renaming or giving it another label is not going to change their mind. Further more, there are many successful and productive people who accept strict creationism. You're trying to fix a problem where one doesn't exist.
So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Thats the entire premise of evolution....that it started life. I propose a different scenario where a master engineer created the life forms and put into action evolution to facilitate natural selection. I see this signature all around me everyday.I never claimed "no other explanation" was proof. Since there is no proof evolution started the process your logic fails miserably and cuts the throat of your own argument. That was sheer ignorance.Here is what happened. Someone or something created the first life forms. From there evolution took over. Evolution is already proven. If you look at all life and even non-life there is the unmistakable signature of a master engineer.
That's a ridiculous argument for creationism. "Unmistakable signature of a master engineer"? That either implies that this "signature" is known for something else, which it's not because there is nothing else like the beginning of life, or, and this is really why ignorant people make statements like this, there is no other explanation. Guess what, no other explanation does not constitute proof. Here's why. If anybody offers another explanation then the "no other explanation" argument automatically fails. And evolution is another explanation. Major fail!
I never claimed evolution started the process, actually I don't believe anybody has ever claimed evolution started life. I am simply playing devils advocate to your eloquently worded, yet meritless statement of unmistakable signature of a master engineer. So you tell me, since you made the statement, where else have you see this unmistakable signature?
No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.Ignorance in the face of facts, is a problem. Just letting it go isn't the answer. These same people continue to have kids, and teach them the same creationist nonsense.Why? What difference does it make if somebody doesn't accept evolution? Sounds like you just want to argue, but the reality is that there are plenty of successful and productive people who do not accept evolution, and renaming or giving it another label is not going to change their mind. Further more, there are many successful and productive people who accept strict creationism. You're trying to fix a problem where one doesn't exist.
So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.Ignorance in the face of facts, is a problem. Just letting it go isn't the answer. These same people continue to have kids, and teach them the same creationist nonsense.
So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.Ignorance in the face of facts, is a problem. Just letting it go isn't the answer. These same people continue to have kids, and teach them the same creationist nonsense.
So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
Look up the word "origin" and then share the meaning with the board. It should slowly dawn on you what you obviously missed.Thats the entire premise of evolution....that it started life. I propose a different scenario where a master engineer created the life forms and put into action evolution to facilitate natural selection. I see this signature all around me everyday.I never claimed "no other explanation" was proof. Since there is no proof evolution started the process your logic fails miserably and cuts the throat of your own argument. That was sheer ignorance.Here is what happened. Someone or something created the first life forms. From there evolution took over. Evolution is already proven. If you look at all life and even non-life there is the unmistakable signature of a master engineer.
That's a ridiculous argument for creationism. "Unmistakable signature of a master engineer"? That either implies that this "signature" is known for something else, which it's not because there is nothing else like the beginning of life, or, and this is really why ignorant people make statements like this, there is no other explanation. Guess what, no other explanation does not constitute proof. Here's why. If anybody offers another explanation then the "no other explanation" argument automatically fails. And evolution is another explanation. Major fail!
I never claimed evolution started the process, actually I don't believe anybody has ever claimed evolution started life. I am simply playing devils advocate to your eloquently worded, yet meritless statement of unmistakable signature of a master engineer. So you tell me, since you made the statement, where else have you see this unmistakable signature?
Ok, first, evolutionary theory is NOT about the creation or beginning of life.
The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.May 13, 2015.
It's the theory that life forms CHANGE, not life beginning, to conform to their environment. The Big Bang theory is a theory which deals with the beginning of the universe and by extension the beginning of life.
As you have already noted, evolution can exist alongside creationism. However there are some who reject evolution, because they choose to believe that "God" created all life forms. A more suitable debate for you and me would be the merits of Big Bang versus creationism. And to that end, in my view it generally comes down to personal preference, since I see no physical evidence which suggest one theory has more merit than the other, your personal faith notwithstanding.
Credible to who?No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.So what, what harm does it do if people don't accept evolution? It sounds like it just pisses you off. Look, I know evolution is real, but also know plenty of people who don't buy it, and guess what, it doesn't matter. Get over yourself.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
Please site your credible source that claims evolution started life. I am unaware of any real scientist forwarding that claim. Darwin, the father of the evolutionary theory, offered the theory as an explanation of different species/ life forms, and his theory is supported by paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.
Moreover, It is not my obligation to prove a negative, that there is no master engineer. Can you prove that there is no life on another planet? Can you disprove the Big Bang theory? We can only offer theories and scientific evidence to support those theories. And lack of evidence of one theory is not proof of another. Again, that is why I see it as a personal preference of belief.
No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
Look up the word "origin" and then share the meaning with the board. It should slowly dawn on you what you obviously missed.Thats the entire premise of evolution....that it started life. I propose a different scenario where a master engineer created the life forms and put into action evolution to facilitate natural selection. I see this signature all around me everyday.I never claimed "no other explanation" was proof. Since there is no proof evolution started the process your logic fails miserably and cuts the throat of your own argument. That was sheer ignorance.That's a ridiculous argument for creationism. "Unmistakable signature of a master engineer"? That either implies that this "signature" is known for something else, which it's not because there is nothing else like the beginning of life, or, and this is really why ignorant people make statements like this, there is no other explanation. Guess what, no other explanation does not constitute proof. Here's why. If anybody offers another explanation then the "no other explanation" argument automatically fails. And evolution is another explanation. Major fail!
I never claimed evolution started the process, actually I don't believe anybody has ever claimed evolution started life. I am simply playing devils advocate to your eloquently worded, yet meritless statement of unmistakable signature of a master engineer. So you tell me, since you made the statement, where else have you see this unmistakable signature?
Ok, first, evolutionary theory is NOT about the creation or beginning of life.
The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.May 13, 2015.
It's the theory that life forms CHANGE, not life beginning, to conform to their environment. The Big Bang theory is a theory which deals with the beginning of the universe and by extension the beginning of life.
As you have already noted, evolution can exist alongside creationism. However there are some who reject evolution, because they choose to believe that "God" created all life forms. A more suitable debate for you and me would be the merits of Big Bang versus creationism. And to that end, in my view it generally comes down to personal preference, since I see no physical evidence which suggest one theory has more merit than the other, your personal faith notwithstanding.
Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
Yes I am ignoring it because you havent told me what you deem credible. Since your interpretation of credible is obviously not the same as mine I can only ignore your request.Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.Look up the word "origin" and then share the meaning with the board. It should slowly dawn on you what you obviously missed.Thats the entire premise of evolution....that it started life. I propose a different scenario where a master engineer created the life forms and put into action evolution to facilitate natural selection. I see this signature all around me everyday.I never claimed "no other explanation" was proof. Since there is no proof evolution started the process your logic fails miserably and cuts the throat of your own argument. That was sheer ignorance.
I never claimed evolution started the process, actually I don't believe anybody has ever claimed evolution started life. I am simply playing devils advocate to your eloquently worded, yet meritless statement of unmistakable signature of a master engineer. So you tell me, since you made the statement, where else have you see this unmistakable signature?
Ok, first, evolutionary theory is NOT about the creation or beginning of life.
The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.May 13, 2015.
It's the theory that life forms CHANGE, not life beginning, to conform to their environment. The Big Bang theory is a theory which deals with the beginning of the universe and by extension the beginning of life.
As you have already noted, evolution can exist alongside creationism. However there are some who reject evolution, because they choose to believe that "God" created all life forms. A more suitable debate for you and me would be the merits of Big Bang versus creationism. And to that end, in my view it generally comes down to personal preference, since I see no physical evidence which suggest one theory has more merit than the other, your personal faith notwithstanding.
So you choose to ignore my request for a credible source suggesting evolution created all life. I'll take that point in the debate and assume you're conceding that you have no credible source suggesting it did.
I know the meaning of the word origin, and have no idea what you are alluding to about what I missed.
Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.
Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.
