Here is what I am getting at, its tone for a hypothetical.
Lets say in ten years time an outside species alien for the sake of argument makes contact with us and says both evolution and creation are way off and they have proof, their proof is indeed conclusive.
It means evolution and creation are trashed, nothing else. And no difference is made.
Lets say in ten years time an outside species alien for the sake of argument makes contact with us and says both evolution and creation are way off and they have proof, their proof is indeed conclusive.
It means evolution and creation are trashed, nothing else. And no difference is made.
That is absurd because one is based on scientific fact and the other is not. I am not bashing creation here, but I am just saying it is not based on scientific fact. You can't put the two on equal ground because of that.
To use a mirror, what you are saying is akin to saying imagine an alien came here and said that the existence of giant squid and the existence of the lochness monster are both wrong.
That aside you act as if evolution has no implications for us today or that it doesn't affect the everyday person. It does and going forward it will do so more and more. Think genetics.
The two go hand-in-hand. You realize that we have observed genetic mutation happen right? And the primary basis for speciation is genetic difference.
Right, because humans floating around in space and an Earth being made under them was such a viable alternative, right?
Either way, it was a 50-50 guess; not enough to call anyone particularly smart without further reasoning.
I finally understand why you can't understand, you can't stay on topic.
I am talking about the origin of the species, not adaptations.
The only thing that really matters is that it had an origin. How it originated, is completely incidental
If you want to discuss genetic adaptations that's one subject, I am not really interested in nor did I bring up. I was referring to the notion that our species' origin was ooze.
What do you think defines a species? It is largely genetic difference. This is not off-topic. You think it is off-topic because you don't see the connection I am making, which I kind of figured given by the context in which you were phrasing things. Mutations are genetic changes. Genetics changes lead to speciation. In other words, we see evolution at play right before us. It is very important in many fields including medicine. So your little idea that if it turned out evolution was wrong, it wouldn't matter, is well wrong.
1/3, but either way even 1/4 is not bad odds. Certainly not something to call someone intelligent over. It could have easily been luck. My baby cousin can point to a multiple choice question about pharmacology and get the answer right 1 out of 4 times too. Doesn't prove he is extremely intelligent. It doesn't prove he's not either of course.
Genetic personalization is one of the next big things in medicine (and a lot of it is based on mutations, etc.- i.e. the basis for evolution).
Also, what about antibiotic resistance, etc.? (I am guessing you will fail to see this connection too and say I am off topic again...)
You clearly have no idea how evolution works yet you insist on bashing that too. I don't understand how one can be so conceited, so self-absorbed, so proud that they can openly bash things they haven't even taken the time to slightly understand.
I don't. I said they might have. Which is why you can't call them intelligent for it. You don't have the proof. Even if you did though, it isn't a very hard thing to deduce logically in my opinion. Occam's razor.
Similar threads
