|
God (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Vernon Wanderer |
 |
|
|
| Saka |
| quote: | Originally posted by ModernNosferatu
Because you stated earlier that the Bible was way too perfect to be wrong but doesn't the Bible predict everything that has and is happening according to what the Bible beliefs are. So the Bible has the probability that everything that has happened was supposed to have believed to happen. So thus this can be impossible as well. |
lol. Tough reading but if I have understood what you've said then no.
It's not impossible. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10(50) has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence.
I.L Cohen
"This means that 10(89190) DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10(89190) DNAs would weigh 10(89147) more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong |
Now you're changing the subject to display your disbelief in a non-theistic abiogenesis. Why do you believe a mathematician (who obviously has his math wrong) in regards to complex natural phenomenon, and then, after seemingly disproving evolution and natural abiogenesis (which Cohen nor you did) with bad statistics, you hypothesize an even more improbable explanation (God did it). Evolution is based on predictable natural phenomenon, unlike your religious "theory". Evolution based on natural selection is inherently a NON-RANDOM process, though randomness isn't absent. There are no theories or mathematical formulas that make your religious explanation, actually a NON-explanation, (i.e. God explains everything) at all valid in the least bit no matter how much you desire it. Clearly you are misinformed when it comes to biological evolution. |
|
|
| Saka |
Haven't read it all but makes sense in the bits I read, thanks for the link. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
I do see the bible has scientific fact in, but I don't use it as a text book for science in that way. it wasn't built to be specifically a science book. |
Clearly you do, because you hold the Bible equivalent to scientific truth, over and above conventional scientific fact.
| quote: | | And my insight on adaptation has come from studies at high school, concerning moths and grazing mammals, but evolution doesn't stem from animals adapting to an environment. |
I see you've spent decades of your life doing thorough research in the university lecture hall (LOL @ studies at high school when you're view isn't even at a high school level-not to mention there is no real research done at the high school level anyways), laboratory, and in the field on your hands and knees digging up fossils and observing animals in their natural habitat yourself...:rolleyes:...you're just making it clear you really have no idea what you're talking about... |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
We aren't just talking about complex lifeforms here, we're talking about lifeforms so complex that there is no route to de-evolve them.
Many evolutionary steps must have taken place simultaneously for pretty much all lifeforms to have kept on living, one minor missing evolutionary process would have thrown off the course of a species. |
It did and many species didn't survive. It's called natural selection.
Your knowledge of biology isn't even at the high school level. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
We aren't just talking about complex lifeforms here, we're talking about lifeforms so complex that there is no route to de-evolve them.
Many evolutionary steps must have taken place simultaneously for pretty much all lifeforms to have kept on living, one minor missing evolutionary process would have thrown off the course of a species. |
It's proven fact that structures like the eye evolved and currently exist in a myriad of progressive steps. For example, there are numerous animals who have eyes but whose eyes are essentially stuck as they were many millions of years ago, in a pretty much useless state, in that there only function, for example, is to detect light and dark, and that's it.
Question, if God made us so perfectly, why do we have wisdom teeth? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| All these creationist stats keep throwing out the word "random", failing to recognize that processes like natural selection are the opposite of randomness..and that the origin of life was a **cumulative** process that likely took hundreds of millions of years of fits and starts with countless of failures along the way. When you have eons of time and a planet being bombarded with foreign chemicals constantly, it is only a matter of time before simple chemical compounds come together that can replicate themselves. Rare? Certainly. Impossible? There is NO reason to assume this. Stanley Miller managed to turn non-organic chemicals into organic matter 60 years ago in an experiment, and while we now know it did not replicate the early conditions of earth precisely, it at least showed it was possible to create the building blocks of life from non-life. Technology has advanced radically since then, so who knows what we will achieve in the next few decades? Once we do have a clear case of abiogenesis in the lab, do you think these creationists are going to say "Oops..I guess abiogenesis does have a non-supernatural explanation after all..just like earthquakes, lightning, planetary motion, disease, and everything else we once attributed to magic man..so I no longer believe in him." Nope..they will once again retreat into the shadows of ignorance, into the areas that have not yet been fully penetrated by science (such as consciousness, or the origin of the universe). Inside the boundaries of ignorance is the only place the faithful have ever been able to comfortably revel in with their imaginary friend..and that aint gonna change any time soon. |
|
|
| Saka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
It did and many species didn't survive. It's called natural selection.
Your knowledge of biology isn't even at the high school level. |
lol. why isn't it?
what did I say wrong?
the fact I didn't elaborate means I know no further information.
douche.
and Stalin, God made us perfect, we are now imperfect... :rolleyes:
You are totally fixed on evolution then? mind and heart? |
|
|
| Saka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
All these creationist stats keep throwing out the word "random", failing to recognize that processes like natural selection are the opposite of randomness..and that the origin of life was a **cumulative** process that likely took hundreds of millions of years of fits and starts with countless of failures along the way. When you have eons of time and a planet being bombarded with foreign chemicals constantly, it is only a matter of time before simple chemical compounds come together that can replicate themselves. Rare? Certainly. Impossible? There is NO reason to assume this. Stanley Miller managed to turn non-organic chemicals into organic matter 60 years ago in an experiment, and while we now know it did not replicate the early conditions of earth precisely, it at least showed it was possible to create the building blocks of life from non-life. |
What you said helps prove creationism:
it at least showed it was possible to create the building blocks of life from non-life.
lol. |
|
|
|
|
