Evolution? How?

cicerone imposter wrote:

real can't seem to get anything right. He writes about Francis Crick, and this is what I found.

Designed by aliens?
Discoverers of DNA's structure attack Christianity
by Gary Bates

Francis Crick and James Watson have used the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their discovery of the DNA double helix as an excuse to attack belief in a Creator.1

I didn't say he was a Christian or a creationist, CI. He's not. Neither was Hoyle. Nor is Wickramasinghe. All evolutionists.

At least try to respond to what I say, not what you wish I'd said.

0 Replies

Strike three!

From Wikipedia:
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic Origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Now on to point #2; precisely who was called what name?

Were you asleep when you referred to folks as idiots, Bubbas, the Lowest common denominator, etc?

Hopefully it props up your ego to do so.

I submit first that no one was called anything in the post you reference; the ID-iot proposition was defined by its chief demographic components as listed in the studies cited. I submit also that a demonstratedly fitting appelation, regardles how assigned, is not a pejoration, it is descriptive. Any pejoration any might infer from that post would be wholly a construct of one's own manufacture, much as are the "facts" tossed about by those who champion the proposition you by your posts appear to endorse. Define yourself however you wish.

You substantially lower the esteem you might otherwise have enjoyed from others, both allies and opponents, by defending such behavior with transparent excuses. So be it.

0 Replies

real wrote:
No, I don't. I thought I had made it pretty clear that I believe in a young Earth.

However, even an old Earth in the range that you postulate does not give sufficient time for the generation of life from raw chemicals to complex organisms.

Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Sir Fred Hoyle are a few who have done the math and agree with that.

Inference, my dear real, are what matters. You're full of it, and can't even provide support by links for your stated claims.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Strike three!

From Wikipedia:
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic Origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.

Thanks for verifying my point, CI.

That's what I'm talking about. Hoyle did not believe life on Earth originated from non-life.

After doing the math, Hoyle's position was that there was not enough time in the postulated history of the (old) Earth for it to have happened, in his opinion.

He thought life must have evolved in space, where there was much more time to get it done, and somehow made it to Earth.

0 Replies

And how does that support your supposition about a young earth?

0 Replies

You see, even a dummy like me that has a hard time understanding science understand that even if biological life began from outer space, it required thousands of years for it to develop into what we see as life today on earth - not to mention all the life forms that are now extinct.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And how does that support your supposition about a young earth?

What I said was

Quote:

However, even an old Earth in the range that you postulate does not give sufficient time for the generation of life from raw chemicals to complex organisms.

Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Sir Fred Hoyle are a few who have done the math and agree with that.

You should know what I said. You just quoted it also.

0 Replies

And their conclusions are scientific? Where's the evidence?

0 Replies

Anybody can play with math to prove anything they wish that can't be supported by evidence.

0 Replies

A postulate without evidence is not science.

0 Replies

c.i. in answer to your comment that two negatives make a positive made me pause a while.

I have been thinking when I mentioned that the probability of a god with super powers poofing into existence out of nothing. In my case I assumed that there is no god as he cannot be proven to exist so I used 0/0 which is really undefined or indeterminate. But logically it is true, you obtain 'nothing' from 'nothing'. As there is nothing there is no god.
But if I assume that a god exists as it cannot be proven that he does not exists then I get 1/0 which is infinity. Logically it is false as you cannot get 'something' out of 'nothing'. So it is improbable for a god to poof into existence out of nothing.

0 Replies

First Post
Hi there

I've stumbled across this site when "googling" creation science and evolution ... thank "god" I did, but a bit more on my religious beliefs later.

I'm also amazed that this has been going since March 2005 and is now up to page 674. The threads that I usually post to quite often finish after a few days.

I now believe the idea of a god as a lie using the definition, "a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth". A bit harsh, but I don't find evidence for a god, in fact evidence against. As for the creationist theory, I use the analogy of a lie that creates another lie and then another lie until there are so many lies told, the house of cards come tumbling down. Creationist science doesn't use science in the real sense to confirm or test their theories, or better put, their beliefs.

I don't want to add to the evolutionary argument here, because I read very good arguments in pages 1 to 30 ... I don't have time to read all 674 pages. Struth!

About me ... I had religious beliefs up until a few months ago. My religious beliefs were around having everlasting life from believing in Jesus. But having good intellectual arguments with my best friend, a Muslim who now doesn't believe, I now am probably called an atheist. I have always questioned spurious pieces of the Christian faith, I remember questioning my Sunday school teacher at the age of about 8 on aspects of Christianity that made me uncomfortable. I was told to just believe.

I've kept up my belief in Jesus up to now, but have never ever questioned evolution. Religion has no answers for what we know now, and it feels threatened by it. And so it should. But using voodoo science by so called creation scientists is no retort.

I feel sad in losing my religion, because it means a lot to many in my family and friends. But I don't feel sad in discarding a religion that uses myths and threats in order for me to stay faithful.

One last thing, I don't know if it's been said here, religion and morality are not intertwined.

From downunder ...

0 Replies

Second Post
Oops ... what I meant when I said," but have never ever questioned evolution," was that I have agreed with the "theory" of evolution ... theory in the scientific sense ... I tend to be a bit awkward with words.

0 Replies

Re: Second Post

Stevo2 wrote:

Oops ... what I meant when I said," but have never ever questioned evolution," was that I have agreed with the "theory" of evolution ... theory in the scientific sense ... I tend to be a bit awkward with words.

Don't worry, in theory your use of words will evolve.

0 Replies

No, language use only improves in practice . . . but don't worry, we are used to the religiously confused not understanding theory, the data which supports theory and the distinction to be made between theory and practice . . .

May Dog lift his Mighty Leg to you . . .

Ho Hum

0 Replies

Bartikus:
What do you mean, my use of words will evolve? I know it is an amusing reply to my post, but it doesn't add much substance here.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Basically this post of yours is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but at least you got to call someone a name, so your day wasn't wasted right? You feel good? Good.

By the way, are you ever going to tell us if you think the Earth is over a million years old or not?

At the rate we're going, this thread is going to be older than that before you answer the question.

No, I don't. I thought I had made it pretty clear that I believe in a young Earth.

Interesting. So, you're a young-earther. If you don't mind telling us, just how old do you think the Earth is, and by what means do you arrive at your conclusion? Are you a KJ Bible literalist?

0 Replies

My bet is Bishop Ussher . . . it would not surprise me at all to know that "real life" buys that crap . . .

0 Replies

real life wrote:

However, even an old Earth in the range that you postulate does not give sufficient time for the generation of life from raw chemicals to complex organisms.

I didn't postulate that the Earth was that old. I just asked if you though it was older or younger than that.

Multiple source of evidence indicate that the Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

real life wrote:

Francis Crick, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Sir Fred Hoyle are a few who have done the math and agree with that.

Their calculations are more concerned with the span of time between formation (4.5 billion years ago), and the first sign of life (approximately 3.8 billion years ago). None of these people think the Earth is less than several billion years old.

real life wrote:

I've been talking about that for the past few days, but it seems like a topic you had wanted to avoid except to voice your faithful conviction that it HAD to have happened.

We've been discussing Crick extensively (perhaps that's on another thread... I can't remember). Crick was suggesting Panspermia (not supernatural sources) as a solution to short timespan advance of life. However, as we've seen from the discussions, the limits he places on molecular development are not necessarily valid, and probably way off the mark.

Here is the other thread.

real life wrote:

If you'd like, you can tackle one of several issues I've raised in connection with this unlikely spontaneous generation of life from non-life.

How about the origin of DNA? How was DNA constructed by a single cell in such a short life span?

You have the order wrong. DNA came before cells, not the other way around. And before DNA there were simpler replicative molecules.

real life wrote:

Where did the cell get the information that neither it nor it's predecessors had nor needed?

Again, your assumptions are wrong, so this line of questioning is invalid.

real life wrote:

Prior to DNA, what was the mechanism by which life was evolving since there would be no mutations and changes in the (non-existent) DNA?

I'm not sure at what point we start considering something alive, but before DNA there were simpler replicative molecules, and they were succeptible to replication errors (mutations).

real life wrote:

If there was no mechanism for evolution prior to DNA, was the cell that first developed DNA an exact replica[/b] of the first original cell?

If so, how did the cellular line copy itself so exactly without DNA?

Again, your assumptions are incorrect, so this line of questioning is flawed.

real life wrote:

Seems a little farfetched, if I must be polite about it.

That's because the theory you have developed to explain things is incorrect. The ideas you have expressed above are definitely NOT the standard theories for how the process started.

If you will begin using the standard theories you will find that all of your logical falaciies fall away and all we are left with are questions about the details of the process.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know