View Single Post
Old 08-09-2014, 10:32 AM   #51
Bufkin Bufkin is online now
Eat shit, asshole
 
Bufkin's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2014
Casino cash: $8991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Lane View Post
Would you mind addressing my question please?

Thanks.
Yes, but then please refer to my 2nd subpoint in my last post.

The majority of my knowledge on evolution comes from high school and college biology classes. As I said, I am most certainly a layman on the vast majority of scientific topics. With that said, my post regarding the origin of life and the theory of evolution came almost verbatim from the Discovery Channel. Certainly not Answers in Genesis or the Institute of Creation Research.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...beginning-life
Quote:
Evolutionary theory states that the original cell, which is the source for all life, spontaneously emerged from Earth's inert chemicals. However, even the simplest cell is quite complex. To be considered alive, an organism - - and thus a cell - - must:

• Have a cell wall

• Maintain its cell wall and grow

• Process food from outside itself

• Reproduce

Could such an organism really come about spontaneously from nonliving chemicals? It's possible that some sort of spontaneous creation occurred; some people say it could only have been supernatural creation.

Likewise, evolutionary theory says that a new species takes between 100,000 years and millions of years to evolve. However, this doesn't make sense. As Carl Sagan said in "The Dragons of Eden," human toes "are clearly evolved from fingerlike appendages for grasping and swinging, like those of arboreal apes and monkeys." This evolutionary process was only a respecialization, or the adaptation of an organ from one function to a different function, yet Sagan estimated it took about 10 million years to come about. How then, can every mammal have evolved from simple creatures like the Didelphodon over the course of just 65 million years, as evolutionary theory poses?

Scientists have found lots of support for different parts of evolutionary theory from fossils, as well as from insects and bacteria. However, these questions about evolutionary theory vex its supporters. Scientists constantly are trying to prove or disprove many aspects of the theory; it no doubt will continue to be modified as new knowledge is accrued. It's possible that new theories even will be proposed, based on new knowledge, to resolve some of the "loopholes" in current evolutionary theory.
__________________
In reference to Kirk Cousins on TNF
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaVirus View Post
This dude is buns.
Posts: 1,382
Bufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBufkin 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote