Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Does it sound logical or reasonable (when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist), that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species (including us) on earth were formed?

​

Salam,
Ahmad

​

---

Can anyone tell me the fallacy he is using here?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
ummmmm...... where is message #2?[/B][/QUOTE]Boy, nothing slips by you guys, does it? Okay, you got me, I confess, I did it. I once again accidentally posted as Admin instead of Percipient. I'll probably get suspended now. Geez!--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]That's ok, you'll be in good company.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Nevertheless, your basic point of view is correct, evolutionists need to have just as much faith as deists, if not more.

---

Please, in this context faith is irrelevant since there is more than enough credible evidence in favor of evolution to show that it is real. You may as well say the same of gravity. All Creationists have is faith since there is no credible evidence in favor of it.BTW, what does deism have to do with this?

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:^ Doesn't deists mean believers in God (deities)? Deists are those who believe in god, but that god did his/her/its thing and left us to our own "devices".Theist:

​

1. One who believes in the existence of a god or gods

​

Deist:

​

1. A person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned itAnd I believe in evolution too - just not the molecules to man extrapolation.Than you don't actually believe in evolution. What you believe in is a creationist's cartoon version of evolution.[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Than you don't actually believe in evolution."
--Evolution = Change through time. Or would you rather prefer a change of allele frequencies over time. Either way, as I too find no difficulty with accepting this, is accepting evolution.

​

--Edit - With your edited addition of "What you believe in is a creationist's cartoon version of evolution." It is obvious that as I explained above, this is not a 'creationist's cartoon', dispite how much you may desire that it be the contrary.

​

---

You had said that you didn't believe in the "molecule to man" theory of Evolution, but this is the accepted and accredited version of Evolution. If not than what is your version of Evolution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You had said that you didn't believe in the "molecule to man" theory of Evolution, but this is the accepted and accredited version of Evolution. If not than what is your version of Evolution?"
--Those are Tranquilities words. I explained to you what evolution is in my last post. The 'accepted and accredited version of Evolution' you speak of is not mere 'evolution' but is the 'biological theory of evolution' or something more specific along that line.

​

---

When I speak of evolution I mean all parts of it, not just the narrow definition creationists try to pin on it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My so-called cartoon version of evolution is the evoltuion supported by the data! Allelic substitutions, gene duplictions, deletions etc etc. Adaptaiton of genes to the environemtn. Sure. It's all fact.

​

Did a functioning human genome arrive this way in the first place? That's not fact and I don't accept that sort of evolution as proven.

​

---

Please define functioning in this context. They never claimed that the human genome appeared whole and complete as it is now.
The question isn't which came first; the chicken or the egg, but what laid the egg. A chicken-like creature?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ We are claiming the genomes arrived all completed. They were not the same as they are now but they were complete and working (better). A genome for each kind.

​

Does the data support this? Yes as per hundreds of discussion on this site. Does the data prove it? No.

​

---

What you're basically saying is that GODDIDIT and we just continued on from there. It is like that recent house discussion. Since the house appears to be complete it must have always been as it is now. What I'm saying is that it could have been a single room mudhut in its distant past and not the mansion it is now.