With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

You should read a book called "Rare Earth". This is a non-religous book written by an astronomer and a paleontologist (both of which believe in evolution!). They build a good scientific case which shows that the probability of even one planet in the entire universe with the characteristics of Earth is about 1/200.

Book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387987010/104-3196950-0014354?v=glance
Reviews: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...10/reviews/104-3196950-0014354#03879870107297​

I like their thesis, which indicates that there are not other worlds where complex life might occur. For instance, Carl Sagan estimated that throughout the Milky Way alone, there should be one million planets where life might arise. However, Sagan neglected the background radiation indemic to galaxies which would kill any life within the body of a galaxy, leaving only stars around the galactic rim and their planets for possible places where complex life might arise.

No, there are not infinitely many places where life might arise, and the chance of even one planet such as Earth is diminishingly small (so much so that mathematically, we should not be here at all). Mathematically, the probability of life somewhere in the universe (at least life as we know it) is a resounding ZERO.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. Much that your petty stupidity is astoundingly amusing, it's also astoundingly pointless.

What I'm saying is, that your 'molecule soup' doesn't have to form each organisms dna from scratch. Instead look at the most basic form of life, and then watch it evolve, which would happen faster than your 27 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion *yawn* years to get human dna.

I mean, we're what 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees, and yet that 2% difference separates something that sits in a tree eating bananas - to Einstein.

Because you happen to say so?

"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change." - Talk Origins

Right now they have provided more credentials than you have.

Superb detail?

Writing in caps doesn't make your statement anymore 'truth'.

Once again, I find your pettiness very cute, but overly worthless.

A) You didn't specify that we could only talk about the one type. If that were the case, you really should have made mention of it earlier don't you think?

B) And how many theists do you know? 10? 100?

Actually it does: "Synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails." - T.O

And once more, this is very sweet. Funnily enough it reminds me of the time you got all mouthy about history, and upon challenge that I happily accepted, you vanished. I have since that time brought it to your attention many times, and yet each time it has been ignored.

Why bother with your girly little insults when you can't even back them up with something of sustenance?

You're all mouth, no balls.

"Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation.

The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.

The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor." - UCGS.gov

Hmm.. Noah lived 950 years, and the difference between the accounts is 1,500 years. The flood happened when Noah was 600 years.. meaning that he only lived for 350 years after the flood happened.

Now, after getting off the boat, not only would he and his boys have to go about repopulating the entire planet - meaning he would have to wait a while before his story could be written. The Sumerians did so, and then 1,500 years later someone else did so. It would be stupid to assume Noah was still alive, considering that:

A) He only lived for 950 years, meaning he couldn't have been around to have dictated the second version - and after a whopping 550 years of time he'd been dead, the story would have suffered from 'chinese whispers'

B) The flood supposedly occured when he was 600, meaning he had only 350 years to repopulate the planet and get his story known. If that story had have been written by the Sumerians the day after the flood, (although that's impossible), there would be a humungous gap of 1,100 years before the re-telling. 1,100 years would also have made the story suffer from chinese whispers.

And once again some petty little bitching from Mr all mouth no balls. Whatever you need to do to try and add some weight to your posts. It's all good with me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it must be taken into account that all those numbers of possible earth like planets and probabilities of life happening are total guesses. No one actually knows the probability that life could spontaneously occur and the number of possible earth like planets is an even larger guess. I would also like to know why everyone is so damn stuck in the idea that life requires similar circumstances to our own? Where do people get that from? There is no universal law that states life has to behave in the same exact way. There are MANY different places on earth that hold life where most would find impossible, such as the deep ocean, exceedingly deep under the planets surface or within a volcano. If the life on earth can deal with those extremes then there is no reason to believe that it could not exist on vastly different planets. Also, why is it a must that the radiation that you claim Carl Sagan neglected to point out is a definite bar on life? Maybe on earth it would be destructive when we have evolved without having to deal with it but it may not destroy life that occurred in that environment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This means it take LONGER to get to what you want. If you add steps then you need MORE TIME. (capps added for emphasis).

Yes, a fascinating irrelevent statistic used by the unlearned. What exactly does that 2% mean? Well 2% (thats .02) times 3 billion base pairs in Human DNA, is 60 million differences! (sounds like an awful lot to me). What they don't bother to quote is that all mammals are within 5% and all animal life is within 10%. You are only 10% different from a slug. I think they call this lieing with statistics.

See, you are totally ignorant of the issues... Micro-evolution involves slight changes in genes from one creature to another creature of the same species. Macro-evolution involves creating genes/DNA from scratch and building into the different species. They are vastly different, yet you have no clue as to the subject you are discussing (BTW, this is not PHD genetics, this is Genetics 101 and Organic Chem 101).

Please find me a documented example of a new Phyla arising. Or for that matter, any new Order or Class?

Oh, so now, you are going to fall back on the ravings of your atheist cronies? Come on - nothing you quote provides any evidence that this actually happened - this is only an unsubstatiated theory. What does this have to do with PROOF. That's your credo isn't it? Come on now - Prove it!

Let's see... Some scientist, who can't even duplicate simple speciation in his lab, claims that he can extrapolate from what he can't do to something bigger for which there is no evidence, fossilize or otherwise? Surely you can do better.

Yes, yes, now you want to talk about dating methods. How exactly do they know the age of these rocks? The simple answer is that they date the rocks based upon the age of the fossils in the rocks. Makes sense since you can't have a rock younger than the fossilized remains found within the rock. So of course the next question is how do they know how old the fossil is? Well, they know the age of the fossil based upon the age of the rock it is in and the strata it is found in. Wait a minute! This is circular logic. You can't base the date of the rock on the fossil and then base the date of the fossil on the rock! Yet, that is exactly what is done.

What about radioactive dating? Well, so far, all attempts to establish dates with radio-dating techniques have been abismal failures. For instance, when they dating the Shroud of Turin, they dated the cloth to around 1200 AD (supposedly proving it could not be the burial cloth of Christ). However, what they don't tell you is they also dated three other shroud cloths from mummies of known ages. Now the labs did not know the dates of the other three cloths (there were three labs and each lab was sent four samples - one from the Shroud of Turin and three other cloths with known dates - this was an attempt at double blind testing). Not only did the labs not agree on the dates for any of the cloths, but they ALL got the dates wrong for the known cloths. Let me say that again - all three labs got all three known dates WRONG. But this is Carbon-14 dating. What about other radio-dating methods?

How about Uranium or Thorium? The substances decay into common lead (and other things). When using these dating schemes, they measure the amount of lead which has decayed from Uranium and the ratio (given a known half-life) gives us the time since there was pure Uranium based upon the ratio of the remaining Uranium and the resluting Lead. But wait - how do we know there was no lead in the sample to start with, or how much may have mixed in or added since the Uranium started decaying? Uranium is never found in nature in its pure form so why should we assume it was pure to start with? If we don't know the initial conditions, then we have no hope of forming a valid hypothesis.

This is the dilema of radio-dating methods. The basic science is sound, but the dates are highly subject to assumptions made about the initial conditions. There have been cases where living animals have been tested with C-14 techniques and the results show the animal to be dead over 6000 years! These methods have NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION (caps added for emphasis) so there is no way to trust their validity. If a scientific method cannot EVER be shown to give a valid, known result, then it certainly cannot be used to give an unknown result.

And how exactly were these rocks dated? If radio-dating techniques are known to give false evidence for ages on Earth, how much LESS should we trust when used on rocks from the unknown environment of the Moon?

But, you are still IGNORING THE PROBLEM. Even if you do manage to prove Earth is 4.5 billion years old, this is still just a blink of an eye compared to the vast amounts of time required for Macro-Evolution. Do the math yourself...

The simplest life forms we have ever found still have DNA in the millions of base pairs - let's simplify and just say one million. There are four amino-acids so the number of possibilities is 4^10E6 so the probablity it will happen is 1 over 4^10E6. If there are a billion trials per second (and no duplicates - what an absurd assumption!) then divide the number above by one-billion and by the number of seconds per year (31557600). My calculator won't do that big a number but I can help. 4^9 is about a thousand or 10^3 so 4^1000000 would be about 10^333333 or 10 trillion-trillion-trillion... (you need to write a trillion 37,000 times). Divide this huge number by the number of possible, life-bearing solutions , and then by a billion and by the number of seconds in a year.

Do you start to see why random chance cannot be the answer? The numbers are far beyond astronomical. This is just for the very simplist life forms. The number goes up exponentially with complexity.

My "ole Dad" always said - liars figure but figures don't lie.

Sorry, don't follow. Where did the 1500/1100 number come from?

 

Yes, agreed. We don't actually know; but the number is certainly much less than the 1,000,000/galaxy Carl Sagan number.

Yes, I agree, we don't know that life must be what we are used to. I was very careful to specify "Life as we know it". Life, as we know it, cannot exist on vastly different planets. Life (carbon based) is very fragile and even small changes in our environment or conditions, being slightly closer or further away from the Sun, even slight changes in tempurature (planetary tilt), could wipe us out. However, this says nothing about life somewhere else in some other form. But, then again, any speculation about other kinds/forms of life under vastly different circumstances is just that, speculation.

I only know that life, as we know it, should not be possible - no amount of random number generating or coin flipping can come up with anything like a plausible explaination - yet here we are. The conclusions of that statement, are up to you.

 

David, from my understanding, life is not quite as fragile as you seem to make it out to be. Due to its elliptical orbit, the earth is not always the same distance from the sun, it varies from 91.5 to 94.5 million miles from what I read. And a planetary tilt, instead of the 23 1/2 degrees it presently has, I don't believe that would necessarily destroy carbon life. The tilt affects seasons, but why would that destroy carbon life forms if the planet was tilted, say, 22 1/2 degrees instead of 23 1/2? And I think "science" says that the earth's tilt was not always the same as it is now. According to this website, http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/learn/sun/skies.ssi, if the earth had no tilt, it'd be perpetual spring everywhere (I'm guessing this is referring to areas not near poles and the equator). Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And look at what astronomers call the "precession of the equinoxes"-the earth wobbles over thousands of years. My opinion is that earth like planets are very rare. Astronomers have detected planets revolving around other stars, but most of the planets are very large. It's not very easy to detect an earth like planet from so far away. This is just my ignorant opinion though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, is the 1100/1500 the time between the Flood and the Exodus?

I'll assume that's what you mean even though the bible number is a little less than 800 years. Why are you assuming Noah could not write the story himself? Why are you assuming Moses did not have written source material for Genesis? According to Josephus, he did.

 

No, I don't think the opinion you expess here is ignorant, sound pretty informed to me. I'm not sure what a difference of one degree in the tilt would do, but a large tilt, like 20-40 degrees would mean one hemisphere was too hot while one hemisphere was too cold. Other scenarios exist as well. Luna (Earth's moon) always presents one face to Earth. This is the normal progression of tidle forces and eventually, all the planets will, in the same way, present one face to Sol (the sun). When this happens (Mercury already does this), then one side of the planet will be too hot and the other too cold. In order for carbon-based life to exist, the tempurature must be something between the freezing point of water and the boiling point (on a cosmological scale, this is a very small band indeed). In the case of life as we know it, the band is even smaller since known life cannot exist at temperatures much above 100F (38C). A significant change in the planetary tilt could make the tropical zone much smaller or perhaps even eliminate it completely. A difference in the orbital distance (notice the numbers you quote are only a varience of 3% and in the right direction so that the Northern Hemisphere - where most of the dry land is, is cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter) could easily make the planet too cold (below freezing) or too hot and arid.

You are right, Earth is exceedingly rare, since even if the planet were the right distance from the star, with the right mass, and the right tilt. It still might not have the abudance of water Earth has - an absolute necessity for life as we know it, since liquid water is an absolute rarity in the universe - or it might be too volcanic, or it might not have our heated core, or it might not have the gas-giant protectors, or the moon protector to take most of the brunt of meteor strikes. The planet must not have too much gaseous oxygen since too much oxygen is toxic and pure oxygen is also rare in the universe. The star must also be a medium sized yellow star to have the right mixes of light and radiation. The star must also be on a galactic rim since the interior of galaxies have radiation much too high to allow life, as we know it. There are many other astounding and unlikely characteristics which make Earth the perfect place for life (as we know it) to exist.

 

A) "Get to what you want" is a pointless statement considering it isn't about personal choice.

B) It wouldn't take longer. You were talking right from ground zero, and a soup of molecules mingling around trying to combine. This need only occur once, and when it has - it will adapt, change and evolve, but as it's already "life", it is easier to proceed.

Sorry, what were your credentials? I know last time I asked you ran for the hills faster than a whippet with a bum full of dynamite, but I figured It was worth another shot.

Maybe they do call it lying, or maybe you're just being wrong unintentionally. The difference is higher than 10%, although if you'd care to provide a decent website that says otherwise, I'll take a look at it.

Oh, so fast to use that rude little mouth of yours, and yet, (as per the norm), completely without warrant. As I clearly stated, that text came from Talk Origins - So if you'd like to argue the point with them, feel free.

Lol, you're a funny boy. Once again, take it up with T.O

What you want is for a new phyla, order or class to appear suddenly, which would be creation, not evolution.

However, speciation has been observed and documented, and even then, (to quote T.O): "Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution."

There are also transitional fossils that show macro evolution has occured.

The ravings? Absolutely not, but as I very clearly stated on my post to you - They have provided more in the way of credentials. I still eagerly await yours, but everytime I even dare mention such a thing you run away like a scared cat, and then ignore it on each subsequent post. I have now asked some 10 times that we have this history challenge you offered, and in each instance, you close your eyes to it. As I said on my last post to you, you're all mouth - no balls.

And now here you are once again, working that mouth of yours - against Talk Origins funnily enough. Can you walk the walk? What are your credentials?

According to who?

Well, I tend not to use caps. And no, I never demand proof, just evidence - and in the past.. well.. since forever, none of you religious types have even managed to provide the tiniest little smidging of evidence. If you're asking for evidence, it's all over the place. Buy a science book. Go study something, other than how to work your mouth off 24/7 and never say one thing of worth.

Some scientist? Lol, surely you can do better. And there is evidence, you're just too set on mouthing it with your eyes closed.

"The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough. Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

"The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils.""

Basically, what they're saying is.. you have not studied, but have made an oversimplified statement based upon your lack of understanding.

How can you try and debunk anything, when it simply comes down to you not knowing the subject?

T.O goes on to say:

"When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma."

If you're going to ask why I like T.O, it's because it deals with people like yourself swiftly, and saves me the typing.

Little more to say to you, other than: go study. And no, I don't mean "The creationists quick guide to evolution and planetary dating".

Study, and all your questions shall be answered. Why are you expecting me to do it for you?

Yeah. What were your credentials again?

According to one of your hissy fits, I failed math. So why this statement?

You're talking probabilities, not absolutes. So it got lucky. Is that out of the question?

The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Utnapishtim flood account is dated as being written 1500 years before the biblical account. As such, if Noah was the actual guy, he would have been long dead before the biblical version was even a twinkle in the authors mind.

 

I just love it... SnakeLord has nothing worth saying so all he can do is resort to petty insults!

Thank you. I take that as high praise indeed. I rest my case. Evolution is dead.

 

That's actually quite amusing, and often helps people who need a quick escape because they can't actually respond to the post at hand. All throughout the debate I've had to point out the "petty little insults" you've been making towards me, and much that it does not bother me, I didn't see the point in it. So then, once you've got no ability to actually debate the issue, you try to use the same sentence in return and run for the hills? That's cowardice, David.

While you don't have to respond, I hope it encourages you to go and study.

That's generally how it is. One army runs from the battlefield in fear of complete annihilation, but once back in the safety of their village, "big themselves up" with statements such as the one above. As for your 'case', trying to show me just how uneducated you are, doesn't help show 'evolution is dead'.

 

Ah, yes, blame your own faults on others. I just have a couple of questions.

Please point out where I have insulted you... I have pointed out your lack of math abilities and lack of science training, but I believe it is you who has come up with the little nasty names... Please point out any nasty names I have hurled your way.

Why won't you answer questions instead of just asking more? I asked for examples of transitional fossiles and your answer is "well they exist". I asked you to Prove your statements and your answer is "You need to go study more". I have a BS, and MA and I am working on a PhD. (Let's try to keep it anonomous any more than that). I've been doing this over 25 years. So I am studying. How about you?

I asked you to prove Evolution and not just show your faith in your religion - Evolutionism. You have given me NOTHING but petty name calling which I have refused to return. COME ON NOW... PROVE IT, or shall we just say you can't and leave it at that.

 

I'm terrible at all that science stuff fascinating though I find it to read but I can think of a simple reason why we say "We should not be here"

We have light. There is no possible explanation for light existing.
Light cannot exist of itself. Something must be transformed (crude term perhaps) in order to generate light and whatever you used to transform it would require at least some light energy in the first place. It is the ultimate mystery. Unless of course you believe in God through whom all things are possible.
If God doesnt exist please prove that 'light' does of its own accord i.e no source. If you can prove this then I will give up Christianity forever.

cheers

c20

 

Nasty little names? I said "you're all mouth", and I continue to stand by it because... you are all mouth. Aside from that, I fail to see anything so hurtful it would cause a fully grown man to weep and run.

It's weird, because you've managed to continue discussion with me, and yet all the while still ignoring the post that matters. I also find it weird that you think you're in a position to state: "I rest my case, evolution is dead", even though you currently haven't so much as managed to start a case, let alone end it. Worse than that though, is that you stated your case as closed, and evolution as dead - because I apparently called you a rude name. While you could state that I am a rude person, because I supposedly called you a rude name - it would have absolutlely no bearing on your 'case' being valid. It shows a dire lack of understanding of debates, if you think your case becomes valid merely because the opposition used a vulgarity.

What you have managed to do is show very little understanding towards that which you're trying to debate against. While that is not an issue, (we all go our chosen ways), it does leave me asking why you would try so hard to refute it, when you don't even understand it.

Even if you had it wouldn't mean anything to me, and as such there would be no point scrolling up. I am not phased or upset in the slightest by rude words, insults or anything else of that nature.

If you look, you'll see I do aim to answer everything that ends with a question mark, but sometimes it is hard given that your questions are impossible to explain with your current understanding, (for instance: "they use the fossil to date the rock and the rock to date the fossil"). In this example I have had to ammend what you've said, in order to give you a better understanding, which will hopefully improve your questions.

While your quote is rather inaccurate, I will name you some if it will help cheer you up. To save time though, why not just go Here

You see, this is the difference between us. At the very least I am willing to give some appropriate links, whereas you would just make a claim like "you're only 10% different from a slug", and then never back it up with any means whatsoever. Don't you consider that more rude than a mild insult?

Ok so.. you have a wolf, and keep breeding specific pairs for a specific reason. This goes on for a few thousand years and you end up with dogs the size of rats, dogs the size of small horses, fast dogs, slow dogs, hairy dogs, etc all of which differ to a massive extent. I walk my dog everyday, (he's a camrose retriever - specifically bred to be white haired), and during this walk we bump into a mass variety of other dogs all of which are completely different. How big a jump would it be from there, given a lot more time, to make them completely different animals? What most creationists vision is a dog instantly turning into a horse, or a frog instantly turning into a human - which isn't how things work. If you give it a lot of time, small changes become bigger changes. It's all a process, and while you accept the smaller changes, you deny the larger changes when there is no reason to. Some people don't even accept the smaller changes, and yet it doesn't matter because "half way there" and "no way there" are the same thing when it comes down to it.

That would prove itself useless if your BS, MA and PhD were in health and beauty or business management.

I have a BA (Hons) psychology and several other related qualifications, and a degree in ancient history. I also have a bronze swimming certificate. I am currently looking to expand my areas, and the internet fully allows for that. Amusing as it sounds, I was considering religious education.

A) Define exactly what 'evolution' you would like me to prove. I get the feeling you'd take the Hovind approach, and list endless irrelevancies such as 'the universe coming from nothing' or my need to 'recreate the big bang'.

B) Evolution is not religion. You show nothing but ignorance in stating otherwise.

I said you're all mouth, which has become all the more evidential as the thread goes on. For now the 15th time: Ready for the history challenge? Why do I get the feeling I will be ignored yet again?

Define exactly what you want me to prove and we'll work from there.

 

Since you have been willing to tell me your degrees program, I suppose it is only fair to tell you mine. BS in Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering, MBA in MIS/Statistics and I am working toward a PhD in Molecular Physics.

You keep talking about Micro-evolution (turning Wolves into Dogs) which I have never disputed and which no Theist I know has ever disputed. Such a dispute would be pointless since it obviously happens. I specifically asked you to show me the rise of a new Phylum, Class or Order - which you have not answered. I would be happy to accept fossil evidence. (This is the problem with your link. They seem to be saying that speciation proves evolution which could not be further from the truth).

I asked you to dispute my simple mathematically reasoning - show me where I am wrong? I specifically asked you to "do the math yourself", but I guess you won't or can't even though I even showed you how. In this reasoning, I gave every advantage to evolution by simplifying the math to just one million base pair and assuming the trials would not have any duplicates (how absurd to think there would be no duplicates). I even allowed for a billion trials per second - a huge number - but I am quite willing to let you specify an even higher number if you feel that is necessary. Estimates of the number of particles in the entire Universe range from 10^76–10^85. Why not use this number. I'll allow the ridiculous concept that every particle in the universe represents an amino-acid molecule and that in one second, half the particles combine with the other half. We will consider the entire universe to be one big soup of amino-acids which is trying to form DNA. We won't even talk about the need to form chains, all we need is to get them in the right order to make the simplest of DNA strands. For only a million base pairs (smaller than any DNA ever found) the number of possiblities is 10^333333. There must be more than 10^333200 tries (10^333333 / 10^85 with extra slack for multiple possiblities of life producing DNA) with no duplicates before finding even one DNA which matches anything on Earth. There are about 3*10^7 seconds in a year and supposing 6 billion years (6*10^9) we get 2*10^17 seconds in the entire history of the universe. Assuming every particle in the universe (Protons, Neutrons, Electrons) is an amino-acid and half bond with the other half every second trying to form DNA, then only 2*10^17 tries can be performed in over 6 billion years forming (10^85 / 1,000,000 base pairs / 2 = 10^79) different DNA strands per second or 10^96 tries in the entire history of the universe. (If you want to make it a billion tries every second then use 10^105) This is not even a scratch on 10^333200.

I'm not doing anything hard here. Anyone who passes high-school basic math can do these calculations. The probability of success is easy to establish, simply divide the number of tries by the number of possiblities. (10^105 / 10^333200 = 10^-333095). Statasticians tell us that any probability smaller than 10^-70 is zero and -333095 is MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller than -70. There is ZERO possiblity for even the simplest of DNA strands to evolve by chance.

It is utterly impossible for DNA to form. This is only the problem of creating amino-acids in the right order and assumes that amino-acids will actually stay in existance and not decay (which of course they do almost immediately when left alone). There is no mention of the Phosphate molecules needed to make the DNA ladder. There is no mention of duplcates. There is no mention of the much harder problem of forming a cell. There is no mention of the much more difficult problem of forming simple DNA into longer strands for more complex forms.

I have given every advantage (in absolutely ridiculous proportion) to Evolution and yet Evolution is still absurdly impossible. Please answer my question... Show me where I have done anything incorrect? Show me how it is even remotely possible that DNA could form by random chance?

Belief in the impossible is called FAITH. It turns out that Evolution requires far more faith than any other religion.

I have never asked you to believe in God, I have only asked you to abandon the absurd belief in the fantasy called Evolution.

In case you only read this last line, there are questions (with ?) above. Please respond.

 

There is a middle path between dualism (supernatural god-realm) and atheist materialism.

Have you read Emerson? Eckehardt? Law? Blake? Schopenhauer?

 

c20H25N3o: I'm terrible at all that science stuff fascinating though I find it to read but I can think of a simple reason why we say "We should not be here"
*************
M*W: We are here, because, again, the sun warmed the Earth, melting the ice caps forming oceans. When the oceans warmed up from the heat-light of the sun, conditions were optimal to produce life all the way from the crude plants to amoebas, paramecia, multi-celled animals all the way up to intelligent modern man. It did not happen overnight nor did it happen in six literal days. Life is basically the result of the Big Bang. Evolution is the result of the ongoing Big Bang -- we're still rippling from the Bang. Humans are continuing to evolve.
*************
c20H25N3o: We have light. There is no possible explanation for light existing. Light cannot exist of itself. Something must be transformed (crude term perhaps) in order to generate light and whatever you used to transform it would require at least some light energy in the first place. It is the ultimate mystery. Unless of course you believe in God through whom all things are possible. If God doesnt exist please prove that 'light' does of its own accord i.e no source. If you can prove this then I will give up Christianity forever.
*************
M:*W: Light comes from the sun. Light has been existing from the heat of the sun as in daylight since the start of the Bang. Rotation of the Earth on its axis going around the sun gives us both day and night. If we had no sun, there would be no light and we wouldn't be orbiting around anything, I suppose. Since the sun is in the middle of our solar system, then we orbit around the sun. If there was no sun, there would be no light, so whatever was in the center of our solar system we would orbit around it. The rotation of our Earth and the other planets and their moons are still orbiting. If there was no son, light wouldn't exist and we probably wouldn't be here to argue this point. But, since we are, we are still in the process of the Bang. As long as we exist in our solar system, we will simply be part of the ripple that the Bang caused and will continue to react to the Bang. What has this to do with anything about Christianity? Nothing. Ancient humans feared the sun and worshipped the sun like God. Ancient humans identified the sun to be God. That's all it was. Man created religion to worship the sun and the elements and life the sun created, but the sun is NOT God, or hopefully not in this day and time. So man created organizations for this worship, and humans built churches to worship the Son of God which is really one and the same with the Sun of God. There's nothing mystical about it. For some unknown reason, man felt the need to worship and fear that which he could not control. Talk about slavery! It is impossible to say that light exists without the sun as the source, unless you're talking about moon light reflection of the sun. Then man created fire (with the help of the sun on dry grass with friction, and early humans feared the fire they created! We still to this day fear fire! It's something that we cannot always control.

You keep making these promises to deconvert from Christianity if someone else can prove or explain things to you. It's time for you to start proving these enigmas to yourself. Then you truly will see the light.

 

Ahhhhh... the good olde anthropic principle.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is a key problem with your above quote. We could sit down for the next millennium, and debate all about whether DNA could form by chance. However, this isn't evolution, and as such asking me to abandon evolution based upon the hardship of DNA forming by chance is without merit.

I will get to the specific questions included in the above quote shortly, but for now it suffices to say that you have the wrong grasp as to what evolution is. Whether god created DNA, it came about by chance, or Lenny the Leprechaun did it does not in any way hinder evolution.

There are many that do, which shows that it's all about levels. These people have just stopped one level sooner than you have - but is that due to 'impossibility' of such a thing, or one's lack of understanding towards it?

Tell me David, what is it that would prevent macro evolution while allowing for micro evolution? Do the steps not increase?

For instance let's look once again at the dog. Current changes would include colour, bone structure, creature size, eye shape, biting ability- (soft-mouthed retrievers vs lockjaw rottweilers), different ears, noses, mouths and a million and one other things that make each dog incredibly different from one another.

If we kept at the process long into the distant future, what else might happen? Different claws, (retractable as opposed to fixed), and so on - until such time when it has become a classifiably different species. What exactly prevents this from happening?

I did answer it. What you're asking for however, is based upon an ideal that a frog instantly turns into a human - or a rat instantly turns into a giraffe. This is not how things work, and it would only be pertinent to state that change comes about slowly, piece by piece as opposed to one quick change into another species. Even if it did just change into another species overnight, how would you suggest one show that, unless you physically recorded a hedgehog giving birth to a llama?

The site given does provide transitionals, and as for evolution - I'm not sure you grasp what evolution actually is, so your statement is a bit presumptuous.

What I would ask though, is exactly what would suffice, (transitional wise). Are you asking for a half moth/half monkey or a half rabbit/half horse? At what level are you willing to say something is transitional?

But how easy is it to make up some numbers without having seen it happen? Not to mention that even faced with seemingly impossible numbers, the impossible can happen.

A long time ago I went to the pub with some friends. We ended up discussing movies, and about half way through an old movie popped into my head that I hadn't seen in years. I shouted out: "Oh yeah! Journey to the center of the earth with Pat Boone! Greatest movie ever". Now I'd thought about it, I decided I would have to go to a shop and see if I could buy it.

Later that night I left the pub and made my way home on foot. I was somewhat tipsy and ended up walking through a park. It was dark so I stayed on the path where the lights were. Eventually I walked past a park bench, and sitting upon it was a video tape. Of all the freaky shit in the world, the videotape just so happened to be a brand new, sealed copy of Journey to the center of the earth with Pat Boone.

What are the odds on that? Is it even calculable?

I'm sure most of us have tales just like this that describe something so far beyond possible odds, and yet happened all the same.

Perhaps what we should do now is look at the billions upon billions upon billions of planets where it didn't work out.

What your calculations don't show, is the point that "it can get lucky" anywhere within that mathematical mess - not that it must complete a specific set of digits. Sure, the chances are astronomical nonetheless, and that is clearly seen when looking at the cosmos, but it doesn't rule it out completely, as seen when looking at earth.

P.S I'm very interested to hear more about the new "hobbit" people that have been found recently, (featured on the news this evening). If you haven't seen it yet, try and find out about it, (I'll provide a link as soon as I find one).

A report done on Oct 27th by National Geographic: Here

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html

Do it.