Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Which is fine.

But I am speaking as someone who in fact seen atheists use this as a sort of alternate explanation. As in, "no the Creation never happened cuz evolution" or "evolution proves God doesn't exist."

Oh really? How does it do this exactly?

As a theory of "Life is complicated enough to grow and evolve" nothing about this is a dangerous idea. As a theory that somehow the idea that life evolved discounts creation, yeah that's just stupid not dangerous. In order to evolve, something must exist in the first place. Nevermind randomized ooze, if you are proposing no creator, you are looking at something more akin to how a computer basically cannot turn itself on. To summarize, suppose the Big Bang seems to happen spontaneously and early living matter seems to have combined randomly.

Only that can't possibly be so, as matter has specific reactions based on chemical combinations. H and Cl combined into bleach, NaCl combines to make salt. Some long string of carbon chains combines to make a fish. At the very basic level, there are inherent rules for the effects of each atomic type.

Even if you try to take out the idea that there was a set plan, because animals sometimes arbitrarily choose mates, the way chemical bonds form in the first place implies there is a fundamental tendency of matter that appears to be in defiance of the so-called trend toward entropy (which I havw never seen, except with aging, and tend to think is nonsense).

Good points on chemistry, but that stuff on 'entropy' was pretty muddy.

Physics has a ~100% accuracy on chemical and entropy related interactions. But i think you miss the real significance of 'Biology's' REVERSAL of entropy.

Nevermind the carping about open and closed systems, nothing else in physics is in the same league with 'Biology'.

Yeah, i installed and flight tested a new prop (longer, less pitch) on the RV-8 i keep in CO. Works much better at these higher elevations.

It resulted in higher (but still below redline) engine rpm so had to adjust rev limiter setting of engine controller. Startled me on that first takeoff.

It is not the purpose of evolutionists to discuss religious fantasies and hangups, nor to speculate on the origin of the universe. Anybody who adds those features does so gratuitously and gets argued with. Where evolution may contradict such myths as Noah's flood that's just the price of learning new facts as we study and investigate this world of ours.

You didn't address that little matter of 'ORIGIN of life' edgar. Or do you consider that 'religious fantasy' as well..?

You should be looking at yourself in the mirror for that piece of remonstrance

I discussed the origins of life from the organic chem viewpoint. Where your own Evidence dos NOT exist , at lifes origins (there were 3 or 4 separate attempts, and the first couple didnt "take"). No evidence of fossil structures of pyrimidines or purines(keto or enol forms notwithtanding since these would no doubt just be seen as fossil hydrates on a C12 covalent bond chemical ).

,
Youve answeree the "depth of your knowledge and interest " by stating that the ID "god" was responsible for the natural catastrophes as well.
And you dont find anything that needs evidence out of that assertion eh?

you say you see design, i believe that you believe that but you should still read some microbio and molecular bio sources and study the wealth of actual experiments that have unwittingly tested orins of bio chemicals by chance and contingencies, certinly no evidence for an ordered , designed planet.

The scientists are opening that box a little at a time. Have patience. You mythologists are jumping the gun.

I can't sound like a scientist or a scholar here and I'm not going to even try. I know scientists have a pretty good take how life began and how it took certain conditions and lots of tries and failures over long periods of time. I don't mean to say guys like you don't really know, because at core you really do. The picture is as nearly complete as we need to see how chance and chemistry makes it happen.

leadfoot just looks at one thing at atime, science is, in an interdisciplanary fashion, trying to best tie it all together, and the iders just dont wanna get it.

They are looking for an escape hatch from reality.

This is typical of your responses, a collection of irrelevant double speak with a few chemistry terms thrown in to sound 'scientific'. Most here have no idea what you're talking about and the ones that do are not impressed.

ALL of the theoretical chemical origins of life (and all others as well) MUST go through the bottleneck i described in my protein argument. We do know where the process ended up, we're looking at it now. And you have not made any attempt to address any of the obstacles for life outlined in my argument.

I just started reading 'Return of The God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal The Mind Behind The Universe'. If you want to understand the argument, this book covers it in exhaustive detail.

Well at least they had the goodness to label as hypothesis, not theory.

you are easily swayed by anything that agrees with anything cultish. "Sounding Scientific" aint the point, the jargon has no lower common denominator,

Noah's Ark is often believed by scientists to be a gentic memory of life as sea critters. Particularly during the pre-human Silurian Period.

Btw, many of these "fantasies" are worldwide, suggesting something more interesting than some nomadic people's fairy stories.

There have been major floods throughout history. People make myths. The floods can get incorporated into some of the myths. But there has not been a flood the scope of Noah's

especially when he invokes a Noachian Flood during the Silurian with "Sea scorpions" (Eurypterids) swimming all about.

I am really looking for some newer argument from DI about intelligent sesign. S Meyers continues the same stuff about the "gaps" and "The rapid time for successive cretion"
and using the Burgess Shale as an exmple when there are hundreds of such collections of unique fossils that identify a pwriod of time even faster than the "Cambrian Explosion".

The fossil record may have gaps but the day aint over yet. We always seem to be able to fill in "gaps" with clear intermediate species (Look at Tiiktalik in the l Devonian). Science always seems to thwart IDers when a new discovry is made. Myers should really know better hes a gophysicist and holds and undergrad degree in gneral geology . His spcialty, like mine in our PhD's are actually separate disiplines than paleo. Ive had the benefit of having at least 3 PhD stratigraphers and exploration paleontologists as senior staff in my company.

How many human species have been discovered?
https://telanganatoday.com/how-many-human-species-existed-on-earth
Long ago, there was a lot more human diversity. Homo sapiens lived alongside an estimated eight now-extinct species of human about 300,000 years ago. As recently as 15,000 years ago, we were sharing caves with another human species known as the Denisovans. And fossilized remains indicate an even higher number of early human species once populated Earth before our species came along.

When it comes to figuring out exactly how many distinct species of humans existed, it gets complicated, because researchers keep unearthing new fossils that end up being totally separate and previously unknown species.

I believe its more than 25 ditinct spcies of Homo that qwve got good foils.
There are other, like H idaltu from which weve only got som teeth

I see that the hampster has started to summarily delete my posts for some reason.

I think I'm done here.