Why do people deny evolution?

Well yes. Protocariots have simpler proteins on average than eucariots.

"Then you present this **** about a worldwide Flood"

duh? where? where? where?


Ah well it just show that you have to take 'fairness', 'integrity', 'truth' and those esort of things with a grain of salt from any 'scientist". Their brainwashed and don't get that.

He just keeps on yelling. I do feel for him, a little.

well they have to resort to these sort of low tactics.

Now they call pure simple math, creationis math. well I also always have to laugh
when they give the 'argument' that the start of life has nothing to do with evolution itself, although it IS in the textbooks. And then I wonder that one day they have to say that evolution has nothing to do with evolution.
They just shoot themselve in the foots all the time.
Yes, sometimes it IS hilarious.
But I also think that farmerboy has to be carefull with his, made in millions of years, heart!

You don’t understand scientific notation do you.

Compare trillions to 10^500

Here's a hint. There are only about 10^50 ATOMS in the whole ******* planet. You obviously cannot grasp the magnitude of the problem.

Thanks for my good laugh for today. Rather than talking about "scientists," why not explain to all of us what they have presented is wrong?

That you have stated something does not make it true. The first great extinction, known as the Great Oxygenation Event took place somewhat more than two billion years after life appeared on the planet. That life, the Archaea, were nearly wiped out by the dramatic rise in O2 in the atmosphere. As is the case with single cell organisms, the Archaea reproduce two to three times an hour. That means 48 to 72 times a day, 365 days a year, over more than two billion years. It is obvious that it is you who don't understand the math. No matter how rare the occurrence of mutations producing cyanobacteria, the thousands of billions of iterations of reproduction among the billions of Archaea make the math simple enough that even creationists and uncritical skeptics should be able to get the math. I doubt that you have a sound mathematical argument. You certainly have not produced one here.

This is the extent of your "mathematical" argument. That is ipse dixit--one is expected to believe it just because you have said it. I see no reason to consider you an authority on any subject.

When someone resorts to crationist arguments (whether he admits it or not), I have no other idea what to call him> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A WORLDWIDE FLOOD AND AN ARK AND ALL THAT BULLSHIT TOO???
My Goodness, your powers of seasoning and analyses of historical "non vents" are amazing. Historical evidence shows us Sumerian stories about a flood on the Black Sea >This was clearly presented by Ryan and Pittman in some neat geophysical research where underwater dwellings were seen on Side looking sonar scans and these were described in Cuneiform tablets. There was another flood in the Tigris Euphrates systems that gave rise to the Gilgamesh tales that ere copied freely by the Hebrew Patriarch story tellers. Thoe tales are available for the reading by any school kid and the LACK of any relly credible evidence about a worldwide flood EXISTS NOWHERE in stratigraphic records,DID I SAY NOHRE???

All this is available, fun reading and easily understood by peopl with low intelligence quotients like me. So imagine what you geniuses would make of it.
Im sorry but if youve discovered evidence that Refutes Ryan et al and Gilgamesh v Noah, well, Im all ears.

CMON LF, you ARE smarter than that. I dont think I have to parade standard evidence againand again. Evience, of which wed discussed many times and referred to many times more for you to now comw along and, with your typical passive aggressive style, try to insult me when you know damned well my argument is perfectly sensible and whats is name is just yanking his pud.
I think the "Troll" pen name is also possibly his MO. So, I suppose I should choose between Troll or Creationist , or maybe just someone not as smart as you with whom you are just emoting so as to generate fellowship among you Creation/ID types.

Well, if the question is: "what are the chances to randomly create a complete cell randomly in one single throw of dice?" then the answer is "next to none".

Therefore, it's not how it happened...

But none of that has anything to do with evolution. You guys are arguing against something else, an old and crude a-biogenesis theory, now abandonned.

WTF is that supposed to prove?
Your genome is far simpler than some flowers.

Show me the lab results for your spontaneous 'simple' life by chance.

Evolution is concerned with the development of life--life has to exist before evolution can take place. Whining about abiogenesis, the favorite creationist whine, is irrelevant. That's been pointed out dozens and dozens of times in this thread alone.

My approach to challenge creationists is a bit different. I rely on scientists and what they have determined to be a) the age of planet earth, b) the evolution of homo sapiens, and c) god's late appearance in human history. a) Earth is over 4.5 billion years old, not 7,000. b) homo sapiens are evolved from the primate family, and c) why did the Christian god appear so much after the other hundreds (thousands?) of gods that were created by man? Why does the Christian god resemble the mythology gods that appeared before him? The virgin birth of Jesus is not new.

The problem is, I'm not sure I buy abiogenesis on this planet myself... So it's hard for me to defend it. And it's all theoretical for the moment, I agree. But those ideas around the ARN world look promissing.

Once again, this has nothing to do with evolution... But who give a Ratus norvegicus's anus?

Qgain, cience does not care a jot about qhat anyone believes in the US. You are protected in our FirstAmendment BUT. SO am I. ALL these cases weve discussed (nd you seem to want to denegrate the value of), were brought because schools were being FORCED to enter clerly religious teaching into science clss. Its ok for you to infiltrate science but its not OK for science to object?? and seek relief??

I live in the USA , where do you??

Don’t distort the argument. I’ll give you your trillions of chances. Now bounce that off the chances of a single protein of 500 amino acids self assembling by chance.

And This isn’t a cell yet, a cell has thousands of different proteins and other more complex organelles.

Go ahead, you do the math since you don’t trust mine.

I see some are trying the dodge of 'that’s not evvolution, that’s abiogenesis'.

Are they saying that it does take ID to start life but not to advance it?
Well, that’s progress.

These arguments are applicable to evolution though. There had to be thousands of new proteins in order for evolution to advance. So far, proteins are what has been discussed in this latest round.

It's not a dodge. There's no scientific consensus around any abiogenesis path. There is a strong scientific consensus behind evolution. These are REALLY different issues.

500 amino acids is the average size of your and my proteins, and I don't know about you, but I'm somewhere at the peak of evolution. So that's way too high a target. The theory is that it all started with simpler proteins in the 20-40 amino-acids range or thereabout.

I appreciate the candor. I haven’t met anyone capable of arguing for all natural abiogenesis. I guess you are hinting at panspermia? I don’t see how that solves the problem. Science says things work the same way everywhere in the universe and I see no reason to doubt that.

I think you meant 'RNA world' but that has many problems acknowledged by mainstream science. That stuff is pretty fragile and the planet was harsh.

concensus isn't a very good argument of course. Unles you like parrotting what everybody says.