Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
100 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, Faith, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle (8 members, 92 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,472 Year: 1,220/23,288 Month: 1,220/1,851 Week: 344/320 Day: 44/72 Hour: 6/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Doesn't the Moon Have Life?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 97 (421733)
09-14-2007 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by jjsemsch
04-11-2007 5:05 PM


Re: Life on the Moon?
jj writes:

Perhaps your starting assumptions are wrong. You start with the belief that evolution is fact and that life arose from non-life here on Earth. Logically following would be that life spontaneously popped up elsewhere in the universe.

I agree. The only reasonable explanation as to why there is no life on the moon is because God didn't create any there. Why ain't there a house in the middle of an empty field? Because no one built one. Why ain't there life on a desolate moon? Because He didn't make it.

Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe.

One thing that your logic shows is a good understanding of the argument form: 'proving a point with no proof'; it's a commonly used argument in very high-minded philisophical debates, and only the best minds have been able to understand the deductive reasoning involved in what seems like an impossible set of causes and chain reactions. Congrats.

Why is it that when the evidence contradicts the theory it’s not the theory that changes?

That's not quite how science works, underneath. At the basic, deeper level, is the underlying 'Evilution', a theory that has been secretly in the back of man's mind for thousands of years since the Fall. Darwin, while on a peaceful and solitude retreat around the coast of South America, was able to clear his mind and tap into the subconscious, from whence his theory. Since it hit the mainstream, it has been the building-block assumption of pretty much all of science. Many odd ideas, such as quantum physics, relativity, etc., were introduced as mere fantasies in order to keep the set of assumed principles required for the theory of evilution.

Take quantum physics, for example, with its idea of infintesimally small particles and inherent randomness, it was the only way to reconcile the notion of 'random mutations' with what seemed a simple, steady, Newtonian Universe. The motions are 'random' (allowing for random mutations), but the phenomenon is unobservable in our macro-world, allowing us to go on with defending the theory of evilution whilst not having to deal with any of its obvious ill implications.

Jon

I wonder if any Creos will actually use this filth?


In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jjsemsch, posted 04-11-2007 5:05 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020