Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
You seem confused about a couple of things. Science is not a process of making things up other than as a first step (and even that must fit the plausable facts/scenario). Science is the process of measuring the result of such hypotheses to verify if they are true or not.
Creation of life is a red herring and you don't seem to understand that evolution is a well described and verified process not some random event.
|
I know what science is, but some times it lacks some epistomology (did I translate this word correctly to english?).
You talk about hypothesis... When science can't provide an anwer, they can provide more hypothesis, in an endless loop. Sure there are many findings that result of this, as every scientific finding starts with a question and some hypothesis, but something as simple as the origin of life is still a mystery, and there's no scientific facts about it, just hypothesis.
For example, no scientist has been able to create life in a laboratory (out of non living elements). Real science can't proove God's existence, but can't deny it either. So it's always funny to watch some people thinking they know better and are more scientific saying there can't be a God or Creator... They're just being "religious".
About evolution and randomness... Evolution is all about randomness... And how the fitest are the ones who survive. There's no "force" that selects who's the fitest or in what direction should evolve. And that's what makes thing even more unlikely, because of the above example: with all scientific expertize, it's not posible to make something that some scientists want to make us belive that just happened somehow a long time ago, in a random event or process of events.