Scientists use Moores law in linear regression to show life older than Earth

Threedee said:
My big question has long been how did we get amino acids? I understand how the process of evolution works, once you have amino acids, but prior to them taking form, it's a bit hazy.
Click to expand...

actually its the other way around.....one is just a reaction in organic chemistry.....but until life occurs you only have organic chemicals......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well. science has just told us that what you believe about evolution cannot have happened in the time passed since the earth formed......what is your reaction to science proving your beliefs false?......
Click to expand...

It doesn't prove evolution false. The authors are not questioning evolution, at all.

This is just one paper, from what I understand. Has it been subjected to review yet? Have the results been repeated? The authors even address some of the assumptions that could cause problems in their estimates. I am sure you did not bother to try to digest any of it which is clear as it is based on evolutionary theory.

Assuming it is accurate, it still does not even begin to disprove or even challenge evolution.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It doesn't prove evolution false.
Click to expand...
True....but that wasn't the point was it...no one is arguing evolution does not exist........but the article states that life could not have evolved from its earliest form to intelligent life in the period of time that has passed since the origin of the earth......does that not mean that science has proven that which you believed a scientific fact is false?....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
True....but that wasn't the point was it...no one is arguing evolution does not exist........but the article states that life could not have evolved from its earliest form to intelligent life in the period of time that has passed since the origin of the earth......does that not mean that science has proven that which you believed a scientific fact is false?....
Click to expand...

No. Already answered you. The paper suggests that it is not possible. They have not proven anything. But even if they are right it still does not disprove evolution.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....again, no one said they have.....we can still have new butterflies.....
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
well. science has just told us that what you believe about evolution cannot have happened in the time passed since the earth formed......what is your reaction to science proving your beliefs false?......
Click to expand...

Wise advice for you...

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain
 
PostmodernProphet said:
True....but that wasn't the point was it...no one is arguing evolution does not exist........but the article states that life could not have evolved from its earliest form to intelligent life in the period of time that has passed since the origin of the earth......does that not mean that science has proven that which you believed a scientific fact is false?....
Click to expand...

why do you think that? I don't get it. Evolution proponents never talk about abiogenesis, so how would this deal a blow to evolution theory?
 
tinfoil said:
why do you think that? I don't get it. Evolution proponents never talk about abiogenesis, so how would this deal a blow to evolution theory?
Click to expand...
Don't even go there Tin.....don't even go there! LOL

PostmodernProphet is entitled to his opinion but no one actually involved in the life sciences as a professional seriously questions the factual basis of evolutionary theory, including macroevolution, and it remains a foundational concept of all of biology.

You'll just be beating your head against a wall and distracted from the topic you're trying to discuss in this thread.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
and how do you know that?
Click to expand...

????.....and in what sense are you using the word "know"......do you mean have I proven it with scientific experimentation?......or do mean have I read it in what has been presented as God's Word.......

it IS, of course, what is meant when God is described as eternal.....which is a core belief of my religion......I find it amusing that seculars think they have scored a point by asking how God began, as if God were some material construct that like the physical universe had to have a beginning....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top