Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky

Evolution is a hypothosis based on the theory of spontaneous generation

---

No, evolution is a theory and it does not in any way depend on abiogenesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubhr_ducky

The law of biogenesis meaning
that living things can only come from other living things. Another is the
cell principle, which states that all living things are divided into cells and that
cells come only from preexisting cells. These are tried and proven laws and
principles accepted in the scientific world. Not anyones oppinion.

---

They are also arguments from ignorance:

1. It is not known how life can originate from non-life.
2. Therefore, life cannot originate from non-life.

1. All known examles of life are divided into cells.
2. Therefore, life cannot exist unless divided into cells.

Kind of an 'all rats have tails' problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubhr_ducky

So if you believe the Bible or not isn't important, however, the fact that evolution couldn't of even occured is.

---

But, again, you are talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution.

Evolution is based on abiogensis, and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.
Evolution has never once been verified. It is therfore a hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky

Evolution is based on abiogensis...

---

Not it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky

and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.

---

That is correct. Guess what?

did you really expect me to read all that?

so what would you say evolution is based on?

Tell you what, read any of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky

so what would you say evolution is based on?

---

Readily observable evidence of common descent, for a start.

and what would you say is readily observable?

The genomes of E. coli, Pan paniscus and Homo spaiens sapiens have been fully sequenced and are available for your comparison, if you have the time.

your Homo erectus is also a bad argument most have been proven to be frauds and others only awaiting and yet still others that have been proven to be frauds and people still cling to them as proof.

I didn't even mention Homo erectus?

I am not sure what you mean by the genomes of E. coli, so far I've never heard that argument?

what I ment by that is that all of the so called remains have been proven to be either 100% animal or 100% human.

E. coli was one of the first species to have its genome decoded (the entire pattern of proteins in its DNA is known, in other words). The same has been done to humans and to bonobos, as well as thousands of other species. Not only do these three species use the same 22 amino acids out of a possible 390 naturally occuring ones, but signifigant strands of DNA are identical in all three species. If you accept the principle that common gentic material implies ancestry, this is a hard thing to get over if you would like to disprove the theory of evolution.

That still dosn't prove evolution.You are missing the basic fact that life can not reproduce except by life. Nothing can come from nothing. Simularities do not make proff.And if you believe this line of reasoning why are there no transitional forms?