If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.
There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.
Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.
Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.
The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.
That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpghttp://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpgThat is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.
By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.
You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?
You,
Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This:
...
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
...
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
...
Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing.
This approach, of course, involves many fallacies. It is clear that many routes could have led to the same result. Similarly, when we consider the evolution of life on Earth, we have to ask what factors could have been different and still allowed for intelligent life. Consider a wild example, involving the asteroid that hit Earth sixty-five million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs and a host of other species, and probably allowing an evolutionary niche for mammals to begin to flourish. This was a bad thing for life in general, but a good thing for us. Had that not happened, however, maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today.
An even more severe problem in Metaxas’s argument is the assumption of randomness, namely that physical processes do not naturally drive a system toward a certain state. This is the most common error among those who argue that, given the complexity of life on Earth, evolution is as implausible as a tornado ravaging a junkyard and producing a 747. The latter event is, indeed, essentially statistically impossible. However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random. Is it a miracle that the planet produced animals as complex as, and yet as different from, humans, dolphins, and cicadas, each so well “designed” for its own habitat? No. Natural selection drives systems in a specific direction, and the remarkable diversity of species on Earth today, each evolved for evolutionary success in a different environment, is one result.
You realize what you just posted^^^, don't you?
There have been scientists, researchers, and doctors working for years to put together a living cell from scratch. Finally, after hundreds of thousands of man-hours, they have managed to manipulate some DNA so that they can make some new kind of life. But they still haven't been able to duplicate the complexity of life from scratch.
Dumb old nature has out-selected the smartest scientists, researchers, and doctors in making life in tremendous abundance. In fact, nature has done it just like God would... if God existed.
Thanks for admitting that God exists.
Evolution is a hoax.
Besides, Metaxas is simply putting a bunch of findings together. He isn't making a new theory. He is simply showing what a lot of other people have found out.
So what, there are many things scientists cannot create and 7000 years ago we barely invented the wheel, I don't see your point here. Life is a complex matter, it also has been evolving for millions and millions of years. In the future we might even be able to make a human from scratch, who knows but you have no argument here.
I on the other side, destroyed your bullshit ''200 component needed'' argument. Now go back to your cave and think.
Did you forget what we were talking about? Have you forgotten what this thread is about? We are not talking about what scientists can create and not create. We are talking about the evolution hoax.
In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist. Since evolution has to do with life, evolution can't exist, simply because life can't exist.
Scientists, doctors, and researchers understand many things about how life works. When you go to a standard hospital, you see them using their understanding of life and how it works... although their understanding is far from perfect.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a bunch of stories. If there happens to be some solid fact for evolution, we don't know it. All we really have in evolution theory is stories. We have not been able to create it in the lab. The closest we have come is to create some stuff that points towards evolution more strongly than anything before. But this stuff also points toward adaptation. So we don't know that it is evolution.
So, to recap, we have much understood manipulation of life in the medical. We have only hazy arguments about evolution without any proof for it other than talk, talk, talk. And then some additional science is found out. What is this additional science? There is no way that life can exist, scientifically.
We were having enough trouble with evolution alone. But now we find that life can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Since life can't exist, all the silly, non-fact-backed evolution talk is totally meaningless. In fact, the medical operations of life examination might be meaningless, except that they seem to factually work to some extent.
I understand your consternation. I totally understand why you would rather distract from the points being talked about. Your religion of evolution is unraveling before your eyes. Your trolling is coming out into the open. Since life is not possible scientifically, evolution is one big scandal. See, again,
http://ericmetaxas.com/media/articles/science-increasingly-makes-case-god/.
Evolution is a big fat hoax.
