Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
What did you say: You said Luca is the common ancestor of animal cell and plant cell. And you said Luca is only theoretical.
If that was it, it only says the common ancestor is theoretical.
That would be fine with me. It is not better than any ideas of Creationism. In fact, it is simply a scheme similar to a good science fiction. We do not learn anything new from the model.
Um... yes it is, because unlike Creationism it hasn't been falsified by mountains of evidence, and is predicted by a model that has been proven repeatedly.
Last edited by laconicstudent; 7th November 2009 at 05:12 PM.
Reason: brain fart. Its Creationism thats been falsified by overwhelming evidence, not Evolution.
What did you say: You said Luca is the common ancestor of animal cell and plant cell.
And every other type of life on earth. I also said that the common ancestor between just plants and animals came later
And you said Luca is only theoretical.
If that was it, it only says the common ancestor is theoretical.
Really? You're going to play that tired old card? I specifically stated I was using the scientific definition of theory. You should know better than this by now.
That would be fine with me. It is not better than any ideas of Creationism. In fact, it is simply a scheme similar to a good science fiction. We do not learn anything new from the model.
We actually do learn something from this model because it helps us fill in some of the few remaining gaps in our understanding of the history of life on this planet. And it is a much better model than creationism, mostly because it doesn't presuppose the necessity of a designer. Calling evolutionary theory science fiction does not address the facts, it is simply you plugging your ears and yelling "nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you"
__________________ "When work seems overwhelming, remember that you are going to die" Strangely enough this motivates me.
It is not better than any ideas of Creationism. In fact, it is simply a scheme similar to a good science fiction. We do not learn anything new from the model.
Creation scientists can answer more questions in a scientific way.
They can answer questions in a way that sounds like science, sure... that is the whole point of "Creation Science." To make religion sound like science, to get around that annoying United States Constitution and the courts that uphold it. Too bad it isn't working, huh?
Originally Posted by juvenissun
I can give you the answers you would give me. That only shows the human logic and it does not mean Creation is not true. If you try one, you would find out.
Creationism requires no logic at all... just Blind Faith.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Creationist knows everything you know, and more.
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? The question is: how does creationism explain everything that evolution explains? Other than with, "Goddidit," of course.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
This usually happened when you people do not know how to respond to my comment.
You mean your baseless assertions. None of which you seem able or willing to back up.
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
It's not real now, but it was. All genetic evidence points to the fact that everything on earth has a common ancestor. Even plants and animals. Actually especially plants and animals, their common ancestor was not LUCA, but something more recent, as both plants and animals are eukaryotes.
If your argument is that we haven't physically seen the common ancestor, therefore there isn't one, then I think we can move on.
Why don't you try to apply the same argument to the Global Flood?
I'm sorry if that wasn't what you were saying, I may have overreacted there.
I was basing that off of this:
Originally Posted by juvenissun
I can give you the answers you would give me. That only shows the human logic and it does not mean Creation is not true. If you try one, you would find out.
Emphasis mine. I'm sorry, I guess it was a bit late and I read too much into what you wrote.
And every other type of life on earth. I also said that the common ancestor between just plants and animals came later
Really? You're going to play that tired old card? I specifically stated I was using the scientific definition of theory. You should know better than this by now.
We actually do learn something from this model because it helps us fill in some of the few remaining gaps in our understanding of the history of life on this planet. And it is a much better model than creationism, mostly because it doesn't presuppose the necessity of a designer. Calling evolutionary theory science fiction does not address the facts, it is simply you plugging your ears and yelling "nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you"
We know the function of a model. It allows a hypothesis/theory to be refined. We learn something we overlooked during theoretical model construction. We may also make a few predictions as a result. But we do not learn anything new.
Creationism "apparently" and conveniently attribute unknown to God. It is one big trust, called faith. But in the building of Luca, people simply break one big unknown into many many smaller unknowns and string them together by something seemingly work. The whole thing is still an unknown. And the worse situation could be that those connectors, which are mechanisms we think we know, will not work in most cases.
So, the Luca is only a project of science exercise. No more than that. And it is certainly not more creditable than what's said in Creationism.
We know the function of a model. It allows a hypothesis/theory to be refined. We learn something we overlooked during theoretical model construction. We may also make a few predictions as a result. But we do not learn anything new.
Creationism "apparently" and conveniently attribute unknown to God. It is one big trust, called faith. But in the building of Luca, people simply break one big unknown into many many smaller unknowns and string them together by something seemingly work. The whole thing is still an unknown. And the worse situation could be that those connectors, which are mechanisms we think we know, will not work in most cases.
So, the Luca is only a project of science exercise. No more than that. And it is certainly not more creditable than what's said in Creationism.
Except that Creationism has actually been falsified. While there isn't any evidence directly contradicting a LUCA, and a fair bit FOR it.
I'm sorry if that wasn't what you were saying, I may have overreacted there.
I was basing that off of this:
Emphasis mine. I'm sorry, I guess it was a bit late and I read too much into what you wrote.
Science goes no further than what human logic can see. Creationism can go beyond that. It is wrong to laugh at the illogical part of creationism. Because science could not do any better. A real scientist will only greatly value the creationism. Message of creationism is like the future technology passed back in time to primitive human society (i.e. in fiction movie), and is beyond comprehension.
Did I say that? 
Linear Mode
