Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Hmm, not only have you no explanation for that "simple cell" coming into existence, but after that post, you have the nerve to say the theory of macroevolution is not a tautology?
That reminds me of an old Steve Martin joke. It went something like this: "How do you become a millionaire? First, you get a million dollars, then..."
Darwin didn't derive his theory from nature, but instead he derived it from his worldview of naturalism.
I noticed at no point in your response did you address your religion of materialism being able to account for metaphysical realities such consciousness, the emotion of love (as you mentioned in another post), emotions in general, or even "moral knowledge" or "moral law"!
You Darwinists always seem to be trying to throw in a scientific (or pseudo-scientific) explanation of moral laws for human nature while avoiding metaphysical issues like emotions or sentience.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why Darwinists think they're qualified to speak authoritatively about the past, present, and future of all living things when they can't even explain how life came into being.
Darwinists require "spontaneous generation of life" to get their theory started, but you know as well as I do it's never been observed. Instead, Darwinists must believe in it by faith alone, therefore, their belief that a microbe became a man is nothing more than secular religion masquerading as science.
And it's a piss-poor pseudo-science taught to children by people who were taught by OTHER people who paid a lot to go to school who don't know any better.
In fact, you can't even come up with an explanation for the existence of non-living chemicals, much less for living ones! And suggesting possibilities is not enough - you need to provide evidence if you're going to call it "science." And the world still waits while our children are told it's "scientifically proven."
As for mutations, I can't believe you're still clinging to that. C'mon, everyone knows almost all mutations are harmful, they're random (which could logically result in a man turning into a leaf or vice versa despite your religious beliefs), they usually result in death for the living organism, and the beneficial mutations are EXTREMELY rare.
I respect your right to believe in your religion, but can we agree that it shouldn't be called "science"?
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.