Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Life coming from larvae deposited by insects? in other words, Life didnt come from God but from a larvae. Therefore disproving Creationism that a god created a fully formed creature.

naunsa naman ka sir oi. maski karun, pagbutang paa nga hilaw sa baboy dha sa tugkaran sa inyong balay, after a few days naay larvae form mag lihok-lihok ana inong decaying flesh and eventually manglupad ang mga langaw. did GOD created the flies and the process by which they develop? well, the creationist believes so. sa evolutionist aw dead meat producing life form tingali kung mag pinilosopho pata sir. which i hope you made it clear nga we are to shy away from it na.

[Hellblazer]

the theory of spontaneous generation has been disproved by science a long time ago.

maggots could not come from dead meat.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

the theory of spontaneous generation has been disproved by science a long time ago.

maggots could not come from dead meat.

well sad to say tattva doesn't think so... he insist that it is observable science bound to support the theory of evolution.

[Hellblazer]

well sad to say tattva doesn't think so... he insist that it is observable science bound to support the theory of evolution.

well, the theory of spontaneous generation could not be used as a tool to support the theory of evolution.

[krkchn]

Yes, It is evident, but not everyword of it since they are all theories. The sequences may be different but the idea is the same. I believe that God created us, not like the Adam and eve story, but through billions of years of evolution.

[Hellblazer]

Yes, It is evident, but not everyword of it since they are all theories. The sequences may be different but the idea is the same. I believe that God created us, not like the Adam and eve story, but through billions of years of evolution.

you just won for yourself a "Pangkabuhayan Showcase!"

damn right, bro.

[Tattva]

@Mr.Ho_chia

your second link gives a fine premise about evolution. But there is no mention there about origins of life sir.

finding the ultimate answer for "origins" is not within the scope of evolution theory because it only explains the observable mechanism found in the subject. Scientific evidence doesnt concern itself with UNSEEN and Non-observable facts. Kung unsay ilang nakita mao pod ang ilang e explain. Kung dili nila makita wala silay ma explain kay unsaon pag explain kung walay nakita nga evidence.

let me illustrate...

where did matter came from? Science would say...It came from chemicals and energies. How did they arrived with this conclusion? Well, thats what they see...breakdown all matters and they all in end up into energies and chemicals. Mao man ang ilang nakita so diha magsugod ilang investigation and formulation sa ilang theory. And from that initial mechanism, as evidence continues to unfold, mo change ilang theory provided with a strong evidence.

Dili puede mo sulti ang science nga it came from a spirit world kay they cant see any evidence that there is one. And those that believes in spirits cant provide evidence as well, so asa padulong ang science? well, adto sila sa proven procedure nila. Investigate the obvious trend. In other words explore the evidence and find the answer and in this case ang evidence is chemicals and energies. Now beyond that science has no answer,why? because there is no answer. Now creationists would say that a God did it, then they need to provide an evidence where science can investigate.


Sir...dili ko makatubag sa oban nimong pangutana kay its about big bang theory naman. I mean naa koy matubag but ang topic is about BB theory naman, then ang topic on hand is "spontaneous generation" man sir. Lisod kaau mo engage ko ani kay daghan na kaau ang subject.

[Hellblazer]

@tattva

sir, are you familiar with The Theosophical Society?

[Tattva]

microevolution sir, is a change in the organism brought about by different factors, you see those in birds, there are sparrow larger than the other and darker in colors than the other. Humans, naay putot, pandak, 6 ang tudlo, higante, lagum, puti, pula, naay hermaphrodites, these are all genetic mutations.

also bacterial resistance to antibiotics cause by bacterial mutation. but sir they remain to be sparrows, humans and the same bacteria. they don't change to a different kind. and it is happening before our very eyes everyday. that's totally scientific fact. but to apply it to

a macro level like a fly becoming an elephant is totally far out! but huge speculations and imagination. that speculation and imagination is worth pursuing i must admit but until we see evidence it will be just that... a speculation and an imagination.

But Evolution is gradual sir. To say that a fly becoming an elephant is not correct because evolution never said that.

There is no genetic mechanism limiting the changes of our DNA. What have been observed were speciation-production of a totally new specie; deletion,splitting,adoptation and drifting of genes. In fact there are cases of creation of new gene.

So the question now is what keeps the trends mentioned above from producing gradually a fly to ? to ? to ? then finally an elephant?


This is not at all speculation kay naa may changes nga nakita sir. Mahimo ra ni ug speculation kung walay basis ang theory pero naa man.

[Hellblazer]

and the debate goes on... ('c',)

i like this. ('c',)