Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Richard Huddleston (reh@wam.umd.edu)
24 May 1995 00:28:47 GMT
Pathfinder <ftm@efn.org> wrote:
>
>On 21 May 1995 istewart@metz.une.edu.au wrote:
>
>> voels@bit.csc.lsu.edu (DANIEL C. VOELS):
>> > [...Rolex Shakedown...] And you guys _really_ believe
>> > that something as sophisticated as a human being could have just "sprung"
>> > up out of some primordial soup with no intervention from something?
>>
>> [...Salt crystals...] ...do you guys _really_ believe that something
>> with such a high degree of order can just "spring" from some sort of
>> primordial soup with no intervention from something?
>>
>> ;)
>
>Whoa! While salt is particularly necessary to our lifeform, its
>random creation isn't even half as difficult to occur as the molecular
>meanderings necessary for the genesis of one cell... let alone a complex
>organism constructed of millions of specialized cells. Perhaps a
>different metaphor in the glass is necessary....
Between proponents of the theory of evolution, and proponents of the
belief that some Being created life on a personal whim, it isn't those
who endorse evolution that are saying that life "sprung" into its
present form. -
The fallacy in Daniel's posting, which appears to have been missed in
the two cited follow-ups, is that NO proponent of the theory of evolution
is claiming that a human being "sprung" from some primordial soup.
Complex molecules, yes. Some amino acids, yes. Human beings, no.
Either Daniel isn't really knowledgable about the theory of evolution,
or he's intentionally setting up a strawman. No offense meant to him,
but I suspect the former.
Richard
--
Richard Huddleston |
ANTH / CMSC | Pale Blue Dot: What Earth is, when seen from
University of Maryland | a relatively short distance.
...the usual disclaimers... |
|