Evolution, Creation, and You

[EatLeadCommie]

I'm not religious in the least. I believe in evolution, but I have a hard time believing that we just evolved from nothing. It makes sense to me that something kickstarted it all. Thus, I chose the 2nd option.

 

[sailordeac]

There is nothing inherently contradictory between the ideas of creation and evolution. The one potential area of serious conflict is that the theory of evolution does not include any ultimate purpose for evolution, not because there couldn't be one but, as Darwin himself admitted, he couldn't find one.

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are currently the best scientific explanations that we have for the origin of the universe and the development of life. Creationism is a nonsensical effort to give scientific garb to a religious belief, something which religious faith has no need of. The entire creationist effort is misbegotten, confused and ultimately counterproductive. Rather than buttressing the faith, it undermines it.

 

[Lectro]

There is nothing inherently contradictory between the ideas of creation and evolution. The one potential area of serious conflict is that the theory of evolution does not include any ultimate purpose for evolution, not because there couldn't be one but, as Darwin himself admitted, he couldn't find one.

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are currently the best scientific explanations that we have for the origin of the universe and the development of life. Creationism is a nonsensical effort to give scientific garb to a religious belief, something which religious faith has no need of. The entire creationist effort is misbegotten, confused and ultimately counterproductive. Rather than buttressing the faith, it undermines it.

In Evolution I prefer Steven J. Gould and appreciate the philosophical aspects of punctuated equilibrium.

Don't believe in chance and recognize that the overwhelming number of "participants" in Evolution don't Evolve at all. Stasis is the predominant feature of Evolution.

Fred Hoyle invented the Big Bang theory and later in life he essentially called it bullshit. It is an epochal myth that won't survive further scientific knowledge. As far as "gobbledy-fuckin-gook" it likely takes the cake. Nothing could be more profoundly un-scientific and the theory violates the laws set for exploring nature. Basically, no- thing comes from nothing. Had you lived in Ancient Greece you could have "believed in" one of the Big Bang's many precursors -- ab nihilo ...life sprang from the "egg of nothingness". India, which gave us the concept of Zero, also has its myths of a world created out of the void. Cosmologists will argue that it's not "something from nothing for there was a pre-existent space time singularity" and when you enquire the origin of thus you get shrugs and sighs. It's one of those Russian dolls within a doll within a doll...

Dawkins' arguments for chance (in the creation of a protein strand or innumerable other components for life) is a myopic and ungrateful approach to a miraculous earth. Here you have a leading light in Darwinisn who accepts the most outrageous odds for the rise of life. The idea of "chance" he promotes is straight out of the theatre of the absurd and makes the 1 in 131 million lottery look like easy money. The odds he accepts are beyond any reasoned approach and to hear Dawkins "defend" them by throwing a billion years against the wall is sad and pathetic. That this icon of scientific enquiry would float such as a possibility is a great reminder of God's sense of humor.

Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, calculated the odds of one simple bacterium arising from a primordial soup. He assumed that the 20 amino acids were present in the soup (contrary to the results of the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded only seven of the simplest amino acids). A simple bacterium is comprised of 2,000 different functioning proteins. In turn, each protein consists of a chain of about 300 amino acids. There are 20 distinct amino acids, so the odds of one proteinated amino acid occurring in the correct sequence is one in 20. The odds of 300 occurring in the correct sequence is one in 30020. Hoyle realized that there can be some variation in the exact sequence, so the odds would be reduced to one in 1020. But because there must be 2,000 different functioning proteins, the odds of the spontaneous generation of a cell is one in 10(20)(2,000) = 1040,000. Even ignoring the problems beyond the math (such as the counter-productive effects that individual essential chemical components have upon each other, and the inability to create all 20 amino acids under simulated conditions), abiogenesis is impossible.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Lol

 

[TownieDeac]

In Evolution I prefer Steven J. Gould and appreciate the philosophical aspects of punctuated equilibrium.

Don't believe in chance and recognize that the overwhelming number of "participants" in Evolution don't Evolve at all. Stasis is the predominant feature of Evolution.

Fred Hoyle invented the Big Bang theory and later in life he essentially called it bullshit. It is an epochal myth that won't survive further scientific knowledge. As far as "gobbledy-fuckin-gook" it likely takes the cake. Nothing could be more profoundly un-scientific and the theory violates the laws set for exploring nature. Basically, no- thing comes from nothing. Had you lived in Ancient Greece you could have "believed in" one of the Big Bang's many precursors -- ab nihilo ...life sprang from the "egg of nothingness". India, which gave us the concept of Zero, also has its myths of a world created out of the void. Cosmologists will argue that it's not "something from nothing for there was a pre-existent space time singularity" and when you enquire the origin of thus you get shrugs and sighs. It's one of those Russian dolls within a doll within a doll...

Dawkins' arguments for chance (in the creation of a protein strand or innumerable other components for life) is a myopic and ungrateful approach to a miraculous earth. Here you have a leading light in Darwinisn who accepts the most outrageous odds for the rise of life. The idea of "chance" he promotes is straight out of the theatre of the absurd and makes the 1 in 131 million lottery look like easy money. The odds he accepts are beyond any reasoned approach and to hear Dawkins "defend" them by throwing a billion years against the wall is sad and pathetic. That this icon of scientific enquiry would float such as a possibility is a great reminder of God's sense of humor.

Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, calculated the odds of one simple bacterium arising from a primordial soup. He assumed that the 20 amino acids were present in the soup (contrary to the results of the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded only seven of the simplest amino acids). A simple bacterium is comprised of 2,000 different functioning proteins. In turn, each protein consists of a chain of about 300 amino acids. There are 20 distinct amino acids, so the odds of one proteinated amino acid occurring in the correct sequence is one in 20. The odds of 300 occurring in the correct sequence is one in 30020. Hoyle realized that there can be some variation in the exact sequence, so the odds would be reduced to one in 1020. But because there must be 2,000 different functioning proteins, the odds of the spontaneous generation of a cell is one in 10(20)(2,000) = 1040,000. Even ignoring the problems beyond the math (such as the counter-productive effects that individual essential chemical components have upon each other, and the inability to create all 20 amino acids under simulated conditions), abiogenesis is impossible.

TWDeac, you wanna take this?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

In Evolution I prefer Steven J. Gould and appreciate the philosophical aspects of punctuated equilibrium.

Don't believe in chance and recognize that the overwhelming number of "participants" in Evolution don't Evolve at all. Stasis is the predominant feature of Evolution.

Fred Hoyle invented the Big Bang theory and later in life he essentially called it bullshit. It is an epochal myth that won't survive further scientific knowledge. As far as "gobbledy-fuckin-gook" it likely takes the cake. Nothing could be more profoundly un-scientific and the theory violates the laws set for exploring nature. Basically, no- thing comes from nothing. Had you lived in Ancient Greece you could have "believed in" one of the Big Bang's many precursors -- ab nihilo ...life sprang from the "egg of nothingness". India, which gave us the concept of Zero, also has its myths of a world created out of the void. Cosmologists will argue that it's not "something from nothing for there was a pre-existent space time singularity" and when you enquire the origin of thus you get shrugs and sighs. It's one of those Russian dolls within a doll within a doll...

Dawkins' arguments for chance (in the creation of a protein strand or innumerable other components for life) is a myopic and ungrateful approach to a miraculous earth. Here you have a leading light in Darwinisn who accepts the most outrageous odds for the rise of life. The idea of "chance" he promotes is straight out of the theatre of the absurd and makes the 1 in 131 million lottery look like easy money. The odds he accepts are beyond any reasoned approach and to hear Dawkins "defend" them by throwing a billion years against the wall is sad and pathetic. That this icon of scientific enquiry would float such as a possibility is a great reminder of God's sense of humor.

Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, calculated the odds of one simple bacterium arising from a primordial soup. He assumed that the 20 amino acids were present in the soup (contrary to the results of the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded only seven of the simplest amino acids). A simple bacterium is comprised of 2,000 different functioning proteins. In turn, each protein consists of a chain of about 300 amino acids. There are 20 distinct amino acids, so the odds of one proteinated amino acid occurring in the correct sequence is one in 20. The odds of 300 occurring in the correct sequence is one in 30020. Hoyle realized that there can be some variation in the exact sequence, so the odds would be reduced to one in 1020. But because there must be 2,000 different functioning proteins, the odds of the spontaneous generation of a cell is one in 10(20)(2,000) = 1040,000. Even ignoring the problems beyond the math (such as the counter-productive effects that individual essential chemical components have upon each other, and the inability to create all 20 amino acids under simulated conditions), abiogenesis is impossible.

are you retired? how do you get any work done

 

[bigdoublezero]

So, is that a yes or a no? WTG, Townie.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Is there anyone surprised that Lectro doesn't believe in evolution? I mean this may have been less of a surprise than Bundy being a racist.

 

[TWDeac]

Lectro appears to be ignoring the fact that recent detection of primordial gravitational waves has lent significant support to the big bang theory. Not to mention the discovery of the Higgs particle. The big bang theory certainly isn't bullshit. It is one of the best supported theories in science.

It's like he picks and chooses who he wants to support based on how well their views confirm to his significantly disturbed world view.

Ignoring probability is just insanity. Does he realize the enormity of a billion years and what could happen over that timeframe?

This is just going to be the global warming thread all over again. Copy pasta, regurgitation of flawed arguments and just general density.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Lectro appears to be ignoring the fact that recent detection of primordial gravitational waves has lent significant support to the big bang theory. Not to mention the discovery of the Higgs particle. The big bang theory certainly isn't bullshit. It is one of the best supported theories in science.

It's like he picks and chooses who he wants to support based on how well their views confirm to his significantly disturbed world view.

Ignoring probability is just insanity. Does he realize the enormity of a billion years and what could happen over that timeframe?

This is just going to be the global warming thread all over again. Copy pasta, regurgitation of flawed arguments and just general density.

IN BEFORE THE FART HUMPERS

 

[Lectro]

Learn to read you stupid prick.

I said I believe parts of Evolution but am not a strict Darwinist. There are innumerable debates within Evolution.

Steven J. Gould is the scientist who said the overwhelming majority
of living species are in a state of "stasis". They are not evolving.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

this steven j gould?

"He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap."

 

[bigdoublezero]

So ... no?

 

[TownieDeac]

So, is that a yes or a no? WTG, Townie.

Like you were getting anywhere.

Learn to read you stupid prick.

I said I believe parts of Evolution but am not a strict Darwinist. There are innumerable debates within Evolution.

Steven J. Gould is the scientist who said the overwhelming majority
of living species are in a state of "stasis". They are not evolving.

No scientist is a "strict Darwinist." We've learned a lot in 150 years.

 

[Lectro]

this steven j gould?

"He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap."

Shut the fuck up. I know Gould's stance...that doesn't mean I share all of his ideas when he strays beyond what he is able to prove.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

no, you don't. that's fairly obvious.

 

[Lectro]

Like you were getting anywhere.



No scientist is a "strict Darwinist." We've learned a lot in 150 years.

That's my point, asshole. The theory is evolving and I have no problem with it. It does not conflict with any religious world view. Period.

 

[bigdoublezero]

So ... yes?

 

[Lectro]

no, you don't. that's fairly obvious.

Says the asshole with his hand over his face and never adds one GD iota to any discussion.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

that's probably true. should i start copy/pasting others' ideas or just name call people who actually understand the topics being discussed?