okay, I am awake now so this will be slightly more coherent..
apoppin:the scientist stands for the random chance that such a mixture could have formed on this planet millions of years.
chess9: I do not mean guess in the conventional,english sense of a stab in the dark but whatever a scientist proposes is inherently uncertaion because he is predicting the FUTURE using the PAST so he can never be fully certain that his theory is right. That is why I am saying that all scientists guess at what the future will be due to past experiences. I also believe that a brilliant theory is not just number analysis, it also requires that tiny spark of insight that only a great scientist and not a statistician can have (BTW: Darwin was not the first to propose change in species, he was just the first to point out how it happened and why it is needed)
apoppin: When an intelligent species finds out that it has a staggeringly small chance of being alive, say 10 trillion to 1 chance per 1000 years, he will automatically assume that it was divine intervention since the chance is so minute to him. But when he starts thinking about it, in all the planets that have developed intelligent life, the species will also think that it was incredibly small while the planets that did not develop it do not even wonder about life so we already have a skewed sample population. If earth did not give rise to intelligent life, there would be noone to notice it.
Also the experiment would have a very tiny chance to succeed and I would call it divine intervention if it actually worked because to get from amino acids to proteins would take an incredibly long amount of time and luck. But, as I said before, we are the only ones that can imagine how lucky we are since if we were unlucky, we would not be wondering.
I wish I could have some real numbers to back me up but I dont want to risk pulling them out of my head and I cant be bothered searching for them.
apoppin:the scientist stands for the random chance that such a mixture could have formed on this planet millions of years.
chess9: I do not mean guess in the conventional,english sense of a stab in the dark but whatever a scientist proposes is inherently uncertaion because he is predicting the FUTURE using the PAST so he can never be fully certain that his theory is right. That is why I am saying that all scientists guess at what the future will be due to past experiences. I also believe that a brilliant theory is not just number analysis, it also requires that tiny spark of insight that only a great scientist and not a statistician can have (BTW: Darwin was not the first to propose change in species, he was just the first to point out how it happened and why it is needed)
apoppin: When an intelligent species finds out that it has a staggeringly small chance of being alive, say 10 trillion to 1 chance per 1000 years, he will automatically assume that it was divine intervention since the chance is so minute to him. But when he starts thinking about it, in all the planets that have developed intelligent life, the species will also think that it was incredibly small while the planets that did not develop it do not even wonder about life so we already have a skewed sample population. If earth did not give rise to intelligent life, there would be noone to notice it.
Also the experiment would have a very tiny chance to succeed and I would call it divine intervention if it actually worked because to get from amino acids to proteins would take an incredibly long amount of time and luck. But, as I said before, we are the only ones that can imagine how lucky we are since if we were unlucky, we would not be wondering.
I wish I could have some real numbers to back me up but I dont want to risk pulling them out of my head and I cant be bothered searching for them.
johnjohn320
Diamond Member
- Jan 9, 2001
- 7,572
- 2
- 76
In terms of the whole Darwin "we evolved from apes" thing, yes that's what I believe.
just thought of an analogy:
If you were to win a worldwide lottery 2 times in a row, you would swear it was divine intervention. But there should have been at least one person to do this some time since the combined proabability of this would be incredibly high.
assume they draw 6 numbers out of 30, no supplementarys, the chance of you winning the lottery 2 consecutive times would be ((6*5*4*3*2*1)/(30*29*28*27*26*25))^2 = 1 in 3.525 *10^11
assume 6 billion people in the world, lottery running daily so 365*6*10^6 = 2.19*10^9
so the chance of someone winning twice within a year would be 1/(3.525*10^11) * 2.19 * 10^9
the chance of someone not winning would be 1 - (1/(3.5*10^11) * 3.12 * 10^8) or 0.99379
the chance of someone not winning withing 100 years would be 0.99379^100 or 54%
the chance of someone not winning within 200 years would be 29%
but if you look at it from your perspective, youve just won two lotterys with odds of 325 trillion to one and that would seem damn unlikely to anyone.
If you were to win a worldwide lottery 2 times in a row, you would swear it was divine intervention. But there should have been at least one person to do this some time since the combined proabability of this would be incredibly high.
assume they draw 6 numbers out of 30, no supplementarys, the chance of you winning the lottery 2 consecutive times would be ((6*5*4*3*2*1)/(30*29*28*27*26*25))^2 = 1 in 3.525 *10^11
assume 6 billion people in the world, lottery running daily so 365*6*10^6 = 2.19*10^9
so the chance of someone winning twice within a year would be 1/(3.525*10^11) * 2.19 * 10^9
the chance of someone not winning would be 1 - (1/(3.5*10^11) * 3.12 * 10^8) or 0.99379
the chance of someone not winning withing 100 years would be 0.99379^100 or 54%
the chance of someone not winning within 200 years would be 29%
but if you look at it from your perspective, youve just won two lotterys with odds of 325 trillion to one and that would seem damn unlikely to anyone.
apoppin
Lifer
The odds of life forming by random chance are essentially zero.
First you need ALL 20 amino acids to form without decomposition of any of them. Then you need them to form larger molecules becoming proteins. They must ALL be "left-handed" molecules. Evolutionists have estimated that chance as one in 10 to the 113th power.
Then you need some proteins to be enzymes, some as structure materials. 2000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity. Obtaining all these in the "organic soup" are 1 in ten to the 40,000th power.
Of course, we need a cell membrane made up of protein, fat and suar molecules. AND ALL of these have to come together at the same time.
The DNA is even more difficult to obtain than these - and it has to be coded.
Proteins depend on DNA for their formation BUT DNA cannot form without preexisting proteins. So they would have to develop in parallel.
Give me a break.
First you need ALL 20 amino acids to form without decomposition of any of them. Then you need them to form larger molecules becoming proteins. They must ALL be "left-handed" molecules. Evolutionists have estimated that chance as one in 10 to the 113th power.
Then you need some proteins to be enzymes, some as structure materials. 2000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity. Obtaining all these in the "organic soup" are 1 in ten to the 40,000th power.
Of course, we need a cell membrane made up of protein, fat and suar molecules. AND ALL of these have to come together at the same time.
The DNA is even more difficult to obtain than these - and it has to be coded.
Proteins depend on DNA for their formation BUT DNA cannot form without preexisting proteins. So they would have to develop in parallel.
Give me a break.
apoppin: do we have some references to those numbers? I know I have been lazy in providing references but these numbers seem a little distorted to my liking. If the chance of 20 amino acids of forming is 1 in 10^113, then 1 amino acid forming would be 20th root of that which would be 1 in 10^5.65 or about 1 in half a million of forming withing about a 500 -1000(numbers HAVE been pulled out of my ass) million year time period where it could of potetially started. This would mean that it would have been a very small chance of forming within the (week, month, year.. not sure how long) that he did the experiment.
just not sure the number you quoted is correct since the figures do not work out. Do you possibly have somewhere where the calculations are provided? that would help a lot in making sense of the whole thing.
If you could provide your reference I think that I could be bothered to get off my lazy ass and get some for my own arguments.
just not sure the number you quoted is correct since the figures do not work out. Do you possibly have somewhere where the calculations are provided? that would help a lot in making sense of the whole thing.
If you could provide your reference I think that I could be bothered to get off my lazy ass and get some for my own arguments.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
One of the problem with these types of discussions, is that often the subject gets side-tracked to questioning the existence of God. Even if it could be demonstrated in a lab that life could arise by the oft-mentioned random alignment of molecules to form amino acids and proteins (okay, i'm not a scientist, and i'm probably mangling the terminology, but i think you know what i mean), that would be neither a proof that God did not exist, nor that life did not arise by Creation. By the rules of logic, you cannot prove a negative. You could, however, assert with a completely sound logical basis, that you believe that God exists, but that life arose spontaneously, not by Creation. The best that science can ever hope to assert would be that life can arise by random chance, not that it necessarily occured that way. Of course, those who hold Creationist beliefs are in a similar situation - there is no way of being able to prove that life did not arise spontaneously, without divine intervention. Interesting arguments in support both sides though, and i have enjoyed reading the thread 
apoppin
Lifer
References?
Try Fred Hoyle's book, Evolution From Space, p. 24. He writes, "An outrageously small probabiblity that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."
Try Fred Hoyle's book, Evolution From Space, p. 24. He writes, "An outrageously small probabiblity that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."
Apoppin:
"The odds of life forming by random chance are essentially zero."
The odds of self-replicating molecules forming are 100%. How do we know? Orgel and Eigen did it.
As for "random chance", that is pure nonsense. Molecules form
through the laws of physics and chemistry, and those laws are not "random chance". They act the same way every time.
"First you need ALL 20 amino acids to form without decomposition of any of them. Then you need them to form larger molecules becoming proteins. They must ALL be "left-handed" molecules."
Since amino acid chains form routinely inside carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites (billions of miles away from anything living) it seems that forming such chains isn't very difficult under natural conditions and doesn't require any pre-existing life.
"Evolutionists have estimated that chance as one in 10 to the 113th power."
Really? Which "evolutionist" was this? And why is it 10 to the
113th power and not 10 to the 112th or 114th? Show your math?
Creationists are famous for pulling numbers like this one straight out of their derrieres. Don't forget, lying may send you to hell.
"Then you need some proteins to be enzymes, some as structure materials. 2000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity."
Why? RNA doesn't have any enzymes or structure materials. Obtaining all of the 2000 proteins in the organic soup is 100%, since they are all already there.
"Of course, we need a cell membrane made up of protein, fat and suar [sic] molecules. AND ALL of these have to come together at the same time."
Why do they have to come together at the same time? Sydney Fox's "proteinoid microspheres" do quite well as primitive cell membranes, and they don't require any of those things.
"The DNA is even more difficult to obtain than these - and it has to be coded."
DNA is a derivative of RNA. It is not already "coded".
"Proteins depend on DNA for their formation BUT DNA cannot form without preexisting proteins. So they would have to develop in parallel."
No they don't. As noted before, RNA came first, and RNA is its
own catalyst. DNA came later.
"Give me a break."
You got it, but I'll be happy to give you another one. Would you like it lower?
Apoppin, your responses are from 15 year old creationist thinking, every iota of which has been destroyed by modern scientists. Perhaps you need to read, and try to understand, Behe's books to get up to date on creationist thinking? At least you wouldn't be COMPLETELY wrong.
"The odds of life forming by random chance are essentially zero."
The odds of self-replicating molecules forming are 100%. How do we know? Orgel and Eigen did it.
As for "random chance", that is pure nonsense. Molecules form
through the laws of physics and chemistry, and those laws are not "random chance". They act the same way every time.
"First you need ALL 20 amino acids to form without decomposition of any of them. Then you need them to form larger molecules becoming proteins. They must ALL be "left-handed" molecules."
Since amino acid chains form routinely inside carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites (billions of miles away from anything living) it seems that forming such chains isn't very difficult under natural conditions and doesn't require any pre-existing life.
"Evolutionists have estimated that chance as one in 10 to the 113th power."
Really? Which "evolutionist" was this? And why is it 10 to the
113th power and not 10 to the 112th or 114th? Show your math?
Creationists are famous for pulling numbers like this one straight out of their derrieres. Don't forget, lying may send you to hell.
"Then you need some proteins to be enzymes, some as structure materials. 2000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity."
Why? RNA doesn't have any enzymes or structure materials. Obtaining all of the 2000 proteins in the organic soup is 100%, since they are all already there.
"Of course, we need a cell membrane made up of protein, fat and suar [sic] molecules. AND ALL of these have to come together at the same time."
Why do they have to come together at the same time? Sydney Fox's "proteinoid microspheres" do quite well as primitive cell membranes, and they don't require any of those things.
"The DNA is even more difficult to obtain than these - and it has to be coded."
DNA is a derivative of RNA. It is not already "coded".
"Proteins depend on DNA for their formation BUT DNA cannot form without preexisting proteins. So they would have to develop in parallel."
No they don't. As noted before, RNA came first, and RNA is its
own catalyst. DNA came later.
"Give me a break."
You got it, but I'll be happy to give you another one. Would you like it lower?
Apoppin, your responses are from 15 year old creationist thinking, every iota of which has been destroyed by modern scientists. Perhaps you need to read, and try to understand, Behe's books to get up to date on creationist thinking? At least you wouldn't be COMPLETELY wrong.
apoppin
Lifer
<<Really? Which "evolutionist" was this? And why is it 10 to the
113th power and not 10 to the 112th or 114th? Show your math?>>
Chess9, I was quoting from Hoyle's aforementioned book that was published in the 1980s. Admittedly, some of my material is from ten years ago, but I will continue to answer your assertions. As far as 10 to the 112th or 114th, what's the difference? Mathematicians generally dismiss anything that has a chance of 1 in 10 to the 50th as ever happening.
<<Since amino acid chains form routinely inside carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites (billions of miles away from anything living) it seems that forming such chains isn't very difficult under natural conditions and doesn't require any pre-existing life.>>
When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they believe possibly occured in prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. That 50-50 distribution is not characteristic of life which depends solely on left-handed amino acids. Has that mystery been solved?
<<No they don't. As noted before, RNA came first, and RNA is its
own catalyst. DNA came later.>>
Ah, "the RNA world theory". Not all scientists accept your scenario that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. As yet, researchers have not located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. It's a pretty big leap showing that RNA molecules could divide themselves in two and splice themselves together in the test tube, to claiming that RNA was singlehandedly capable of running a cell. Also, please explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.
113th power and not 10 to the 112th or 114th? Show your math?>>
Chess9, I was quoting from Hoyle's aforementioned book that was published in the 1980s. Admittedly, some of my material is from ten years ago, but I will continue to answer your assertions. As far as 10 to the 112th or 114th, what's the difference? Mathematicians generally dismiss anything that has a chance of 1 in 10 to the 50th as ever happening.
<<Since amino acid chains form routinely inside carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites (billions of miles away from anything living) it seems that forming such chains isn't very difficult under natural conditions and doesn't require any pre-existing life.>>
When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they believe possibly occured in prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. That 50-50 distribution is not characteristic of life which depends solely on left-handed amino acids. Has that mystery been solved?
<<No they don't. As noted before, RNA came first, and RNA is its
own catalyst. DNA came later.>>
Ah, "the RNA world theory". Not all scientists accept your scenario that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. As yet, researchers have not located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. It's a pretty big leap showing that RNA molecules could divide themselves in two and splice themselves together in the test tube, to claiming that RNA was singlehandedly capable of running a cell. Also, please explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.
Apoppin:
Well, Hoyle was a very smart guy, but he was a mathematician. His work on the math of evolution has been largely discounted because he made a few critical errors. He was not a fan of neo-Darwinism anyway. Unfortunately, creationists still cite his works because they partially support their views.
Why refer to any numbers if they aren't correct is my point? You haven't given me the names of any "evilutionists" who support your preposterous numbers so I'd submit none must exist.
Regarding right and left handed molecules, I believe the current thinking is the left handed molecule presented superiority and gobbled up the righties very early. Which should give all right handed people pause.... Anyway, that old saw has been around for more than 20 years and it isn't any better now than it was then.
I don't know what you mean by "energy" but the soup had plenty of it. Also, some scientists believe the electrical stimulation by lightning or other natural causes provided some stimulus to the creation of "life".
Well, Hoyle was a very smart guy, but he was a mathematician. His work on the math of evolution has been largely discounted because he made a few critical errors. He was not a fan of neo-Darwinism anyway. Unfortunately, creationists still cite his works because they partially support their views.
Why refer to any numbers if they aren't correct is my point? You haven't given me the names of any "evilutionists" who support your preposterous numbers so I'd submit none must exist.
Regarding right and left handed molecules, I believe the current thinking is the left handed molecule presented superiority and gobbled up the righties very early. Which should give all right handed people pause....
Anyway, that old saw has been around for more than 20 years and it isn't any better now than it was then.I don't know what you mean by "energy" but the soup had plenty of it. Also, some scientists believe the electrical stimulation by lightning or other natural causes provided some stimulus to the creation of "life".
apoppin
Lifer
Hoyle IS a smart guy - he published a new book in 1999. Or has he recently died?
He is also an evolutionist - albeit his theory is that life came from elsewhere.
Why refer to the numbers? Because life forming in the manner you describe is preposterous. As I pointed out, that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power is considered as not happening. These numbers are astronomically greater.
If left handed molecules gobbled up the righties, it is strange that that cannot be demonstrated. You state theory as fact (as do most evolutionists).
The more we learn, the more doubts are growing - even among scientists - that evolution is fact as presented. Not the other way 'round as you would have us believe.
As to your "energy" source, it tends to decompose amino asids as they are created.
He is also an evolutionist - albeit his theory is that life came from elsewhere.
Why refer to the numbers? Because life forming in the manner you describe is preposterous. As I pointed out, that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power is considered as not happening. These numbers are astronomically greater.
If left handed molecules gobbled up the righties, it is strange that that cannot be demonstrated. You state theory as fact (as do most evolutionists).
The more we learn, the more doubts are growing - even among scientists - that evolution is fact as presented. Not the other way 'round as you would have us believe.
As to your "energy" source, it tends to decompose amino asids as they are created.
<< You state theory as fact (as do most evolutionists). >>
When you get down to it, all science is "theories". Do you discount all science because of this? I certainly hope not.
apoppin
Lifer
<<Do you discount all science?>>
Certainly not. Was it the "scientific method" that led you to this conclusion?
I am just pointing out that evolution goes under the guise of a science.
From an interview with biochemist Behe:
Behe: <<Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. As I have shown in my book, if you look in the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in a Darwinian fashion, there aren't any. It's startling.
There's a journal called the Journal of Molecular Evolution which is about 25 years old and has published over 1,000 papers since its inception. The journal publishes a lot about trying to determine which proteins, genes, and nucleic acids are related to which other ones by looking at their protein or nucleotide sequence. That may be interesting, and it may be a legitimate question in its own right, but comparing sequences simply can't tell you how these complex molecular machines came to be step-by-Darwinian-step. So essentially, over its 25- year history, the Journal of Molecular Evolution has completely avoided the real question of how the heck these extremely complex systems could have been put together.
So most scientists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don't bother with Darwinism. Remarkably it has very little to do with the day-to-day work of science and serves pretty much as a philosophical underpinning which, in my opinion, is only inhibiting real research into how life developed.>>
Certainly not. Was it the "scientific method" that led you to this conclusion?
I am just pointing out that evolution goes under the guise of a science.
From an interview with biochemist Behe:
Behe: <<Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. As I have shown in my book, if you look in the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in a Darwinian fashion, there aren't any. It's startling.
There's a journal called the Journal of Molecular Evolution which is about 25 years old and has published over 1,000 papers since its inception. The journal publishes a lot about trying to determine which proteins, genes, and nucleic acids are related to which other ones by looking at their protein or nucleotide sequence. That may be interesting, and it may be a legitimate question in its own right, but comparing sequences simply can't tell you how these complex molecular machines came to be step-by-Darwinian-step. So essentially, over its 25- year history, the Journal of Molecular Evolution has completely avoided the real question of how the heck these extremely complex systems could have been put together.
So most scientists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don't bother with Darwinism. Remarkably it has very little to do with the day-to-day work of science and serves pretty much as a philosophical underpinning which, in my opinion, is only inhibiting real research into how life developed.>>
LordMaul
Lifer
- Nov 16, 2000
- 15,168
- 1
- 0
Interesting...so the universe was always there, eh? Then why can't you believe GOD was just always there? I have an idea. Stop telling other people to "Think about, then Shut up" and leave this thread alone. It is not any different than the other one, and this one even started out as "No flame wars please" and what is happening? I think there are more than one person that need to learn how to READ lol
That's a big negative. I'll stick with the chaos theory to disprove it and play my cards on the supreme being side of the house.
Apoppin:
I never said the Theory of Evolution was fact. Actually, I think you mean Law, but nonetheless I never said it. What I am saying is we have a large framework of data to support a neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
Hoyle's view of an extraterrestrial basis for life may prove correct. I certainly don't claim it is impossible. However, the competing neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution overwhelms his views. His data is slim for obvious reasons.
Regardless, creation science isn't science. The followers of Morris and kin have simply tried to construct a scientific basis for believing the earth is 6000 years old and was created by God in 6 days. No such evidence exists. Those who choose to believe in Genesis should simply say so without trying to adorn such perfectly acceptable views with scientific trappings.
Furthermore, I believe in God and have no problem agreeing with current thinking on abiogenesis, common descent, or speciation. Only a small percentage of the world's religious people have your narrow view of the primacy and infallibility of the bible.
I see you have quoted Behe finally. He is the current darling of the creation scientists but I wouldn't want to debate him because he knows much more about molecular biology than most graduate students. He is a formidible opponent of traditional thinking on evolution. He has many, many equally formidable detractors. In fact, I don't know of one chairman of a biology department at a major university who shares his views. Regardless, he is giving traditional thinkers plenty to think about, and that is always good.
By the way, I'm simply an amateur biologist, not a molecular biologist. I've been reading for 30 years, but I'm hardly an expert. I started out opposed to abiogenesis and common descent.
I never said the Theory of Evolution was fact. Actually, I think you mean Law, but nonetheless I never said it. What I am saying is we have a large framework of data to support a neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
Hoyle's view of an extraterrestrial basis for life may prove correct. I certainly don't claim it is impossible. However, the competing neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution overwhelms his views. His data is slim for obvious reasons.
Regardless, creation science isn't science. The followers of Morris and kin have simply tried to construct a scientific basis for believing the earth is 6000 years old and was created by God in 6 days. No such evidence exists. Those who choose to believe in Genesis should simply say so without trying to adorn such perfectly acceptable views with scientific trappings.
Furthermore, I believe in God and have no problem agreeing with current thinking on abiogenesis, common descent, or speciation. Only a small percentage of the world's religious people have your narrow view of the primacy and infallibility of the bible.
I see you have quoted Behe finally. He is the current darling of the creation scientists but I wouldn't want to debate him because he knows much more about molecular biology than most graduate students. He is a formidible opponent of traditional thinking on evolution. He has many, many equally formidable detractors. In fact, I don't know of one chairman of a biology department at a major university who shares his views. Regardless, he is giving traditional thinkers plenty to think about, and that is always good.
By the way, I'm simply an amateur biologist, not a molecular biologist. I've been reading for 30 years, but I'm hardly an expert. I started out opposed to abiogenesis and common descent.
apoppin
Lifer
chess9, I do believe in creation. However, I do not believe the Bible teaches that the earth is only 6,000 years old, nor do I believe it was created in 6 24-hour days. I agree that no such evidence exists. The Bible simply states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," (Genesis 1:1). How long ago it doesn't state - just "In the beginning . . ."
As to saving Behe 'till last, I was always taught to hold back the "big guns" in a debate. (There are plenty more, too.)
At least I have also cleared up my view regarding Biblical creation.
As to saving Behe 'till last, I was always taught to hold back the "big guns" in a debate. (There are plenty more, too.)
At least I have also cleared up my view regarding Biblical creation.
Big thread and I only skimmed the responses here and there.
But, all of this of what a theory is and whether it is fact is kinda off the beat n path.
If this "unproven" theory which is supposedly in so much dispute to be such hogwash?
And with the halfbaked theory of biblical creationism positively being the stuff for bible beaters of the evangelic community to cling to aside.
JUST WHAT IS ANOTHER MORE PLAUSIBLE "THEORY" OF HOW THINGS CAME TO PASS? I see a whole lot of responses that state they disprove evolution and yet one does not see any offering that is more plausible.
Oh by the way. This might prove fatal in being stated. I do believe in God. And I am of the belief that God relizing that man in his lack of wisdom and understanding at the time of Biblical writing was just a eating sleeping being with little ability to understand things like we can today. And even now we are probably missing the boat. But the whole 6 day thing and all of that would clearly appeal to the much more supersticious nature of man. Remember, this was the time when man still believed in mythology. So if I were God, looking down on these morons called man, I would most likely have to give into their supersticious and low logic capacity of the day and basically give them something, anything that would lend an explanation of why things were. I just don't see the average fisherman or sheepherder even beginnning to understand things the way that the average person can today. Well, maybe the average person can today. I see proof from day to day that even makes that last statement a questionable assumption. LOL.
But, all of this of what a theory is and whether it is fact is kinda off the beat n path.
If this "unproven" theory which is supposedly in so much dispute to be such hogwash?
And with the halfbaked theory of biblical creationism positively being the stuff for bible beaters of the evangelic community to cling to aside.
JUST WHAT IS ANOTHER MORE PLAUSIBLE "THEORY" OF HOW THINGS CAME TO PASS? I see a whole lot of responses that state they disprove evolution and yet one does not see any offering that is more plausible.
Oh by the way. This might prove fatal in being stated. I do believe in God. And I am of the belief that God relizing that man in his lack of wisdom and understanding at the time of Biblical writing was just a eating sleeping being with little ability to understand things like we can today. And even now we are probably missing the boat. But the whole 6 day thing and all of that would clearly appeal to the much more supersticious nature of man. Remember, this was the time when man still believed in mythology. So if I were God, looking down on these morons called man, I would most likely have to give into their supersticious and low logic capacity of the day and basically give them something, anything that would lend an explanation of why things were. I just don't see the average fisherman or sheepherder even beginnning to understand things the way that the average person can today. Well, maybe the average person can today. I see proof from day to day that even makes that last statement a questionable assumption. LOL.
For those who might be interested in learning about abiogenesis, here is a link to a site that explains fairly current thinking. The information is only a couple of years old for the most part.
Double double toil and trouble, cauldron burn and cauldron bubble....
Double double toil and trouble, cauldron burn and cauldron bubble....
The abiogenesis theory has been around for at least 50 years ever since Stanly Miller showed that amino acids and lipids form spontaneously given the certain conditions.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter