Big break in evolution...

**Gotch** · October 9th, 2009, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by valour

Actually, it goes a little deeper than that. If I am understanding naturalism or evolution in the manner that it is presented they say that nothing sprang to something, then to a fish, then to a hooved land animal, and then eventually back to the water.

That would be more logical to me if they could explain how a fish that breathes through gills survived the transition in the first place.

Although there are alternative evolutionary theories, the prevailing one is that amino acids contained within a "primordial soup" reacted after a catalyst, possibly a lightning strike, and developed in simple single cell life which eventually evolved into every living thing on earth, both plant and animal, with this scenario perhaps occurring repeatedly with slightly different results, perhaps not.

Takes no faith to believe that

**Biggin** · October 9th, 2009, 11:54 PM

I dont understand how using one definition of the beginning of human life that has a little scientific evidence is more hard to believe than a theory of the beginning of man that has no scientific basis whatsoever.

I have never said the Theory of Evolution is true, nor do I believe it to be 100% correct, but I do believe that there is more evidence support that theory than any other one.

**valour** · October 10th, 2009, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gotch

Although there are alternative evolutionary theories, the prevailing one is that amino acids contained within a "primordial soup" reacted after a catalyst, possibly a lightning strike, and developed in simple single cell life which eventually evolved into every living thing on earth, both plant and animal, with this scenario perhaps occurring repeatedly with slightly different results, perhaps not.

Takes no faith to believe that

My point exactly. It is not like anyone was there to observe that and yet a theory is a "fact" in the scientific community.

**valour** · October 10th, 2009, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Biggin

I dont understand how using one definition of the beginning of human life that has a little scientific evidence is more hard to believe than a theory of the beginning of man that has no scientific basis whatsoever.

I have never said the Theory of Evolution is true, nor do I believe it to be 100% correct, but I do believe that there is more evidence support that theory than any other one.

How can God be explained through Science, or should he be? God is not familiar with time, he does not operate in time.I do not expect that Science will ever be able to explain God. Most do not even believe in him, so why would they attempt to explain something they do not believe exists?