Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Magic Man]

The good news is...that its probably more likely that god exists then it is for this to happen:

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

So, what is the chance of the assemblage of God?

 

[Father Heathen]

We really need a "facepalm" smiley.

Allow Cpt. Picard to oblige.

Seriously, creationists are quite a sordid sort with their rather shameful display of deliberate dishonesty and futile desperation.

 

[Heneni]

Heni,

Apparently so, because if one asserts, "The probability of X forming by random chance is..." and then admits that the process by which X forms is non-random, there's not much to talk about.

The chemicals have to be the right ones, with the right energy, with the right electron arrangement, with the right amount of kinetic energy...etc...etc...etc....

The probability of that happening is small. Hydrogen reacts with oxygen with some heat..and forms water. The reaction is explosive. So our earth isnt exploding all the time is it? Because the conditions for it to happen is not right. The probablitly of this goo mixture forming all by itself from various chemicals which just happened to be in the right place at the right time, with the right amount of energy, with the right orientation etc...etc...is small.


There is a differnce between taking two chemicals and putting them in a test tube thereby GREATLY increasing their chances of colliding, and ASSUMING that chemicals got themselves together, collided and formed goo.

What were these chemicals exactly...any proof? (no speculation or probabilities ok?)

What gave them the energy? ...any proof?

Where did the chemicals come from...any proof?


Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist said, “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago states that the “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin. So what theory works for them?

 

[Magic Man]

Allow Cpt. Picard to oblige.

Seriously, creationists are quite a sordid sort with their rather shameful display of deliberate dishonesty and futile desperation.

Yeah, this is the go-to. It's just kind of cumbersome. It would be so nice if we just had a little smiley to click on right here. But thanks.

 

[Magic Man]

The probability of that happening is small.

I'm going to try this again:

So, what is the probability of God happening? What is the probability that something complex and powerful enough to create the universe just popped into existence out of nothing?

 

[painted wolf]

The probability of that happening is small. Hydrogen reacts with oxygen with some heat..and forms water. The reaction is explosive.

*bold mine

Seriously... you are a chemist?

The formation of H2O is explosive?

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Heneni,

Hydrogen reacts with oxygen with some heat..and forms water. The reaction is explosive. So our earth isnt exploding all the time is it? Because the conditions for it to happen is not right.

Er......um.......uh

Ok, it's time to start speculating that we're all being played here. Is this an example of Poe's Law?

 

[Father Heathen]

Heneni,

Er......um.......uh

Ok, it's time to start speculating that we're all being played here. Is this an example of Poe's Law?

If Heneni is a "Poe" troll, then she deserves a metal for being a pretty damned dedicated and persistent one. But unfortunately I'm afraid she is a genuine example of fundamentalist delusion and insanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just a question...are you saying that organic molecules were the 'starting' chemicals for evolution?

No, I'm saying that organic molecules were the "starting" chemicals for abiogenesis. Rudimentary life forms were the starting point for evolution.

Abundant...yes maybe. But also conveniently abundant to make this evolution theory work?

Evolution's irrelevant at this point. We're talking about abiogenesis. And it seems that they were abundant enough; it's not a matter of convenience.

Probable?

You probably know more about organic chemistry than I do, but organic reactions happen all the time.

Looks like?

"All evidence indicates", if you prefer. Better?

Ok..ill give you this one. (the sun) If lighting caused the first 'chemical reaction' then lighting must still be chemically reacting species on this earth and transforming them into different beings.

Quite possibly, though the conditions are different now, thanks mainly to life living on Earth for billions of years. I don't know offhand whether the probability of abiogenesis goes up or down in an oxygen-rich environment like ours, for instance. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the "building blocks of life", if they were to arise today, wouldn't be a food source for some extant organism.

And the heat of the earth is not likely to be the reason for evolution today...

It was never the reason for evolution, and I'm starting to have trouble believing that you don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, considering the number of times it's been explained to you.

IF?

Sheesh. If it makes you happier, how about this:

Generally speaking, if you've got enough of them, you'll have some with the right orientation. The early Earth would have had enough of them, so check.

And if all these things happened and started us off..why cant we just get it started agian? Its not that simple.

I don't know, but I don't see how that matters for evolution.

You mentioned the contact process before; I doubt anyone's managed to re-create the stellar nuclear reactions that would have created the vanadium in the vanadium pentoxide that's used as a catalyst in the process; does that mean that the contact process isn't scientifically sound?

 

[Jose Fly]

Father Heathen,

I suppose, but at some point given the extreme level of ignorance on display here, one has to figure this is akin to trying to discuss quantum physics with a pre-schooler.

 

[Father Heathen]

Father Heathen,

I suppose, but at some point given the extreme level of ignorance on display here, one has to figure this is akin to trying to discuss quantum physics with a pre-schooler.

Well, we would be lying to ourselves if we said we actually thought biblical literalists would have an honest and objective interest in facts, logic and evidence.

 

[Heneni]

*bold mine

Seriously... you are a chemist?

The formation of H2O is explosive?

wa:do

yip if done in a closed container. If hydrogen and oxygen reacted in the atmosphere it would still release a LOT of energy. They dont react in nature. You have to make them react to make water.

Sure earth is not a closed container, but the probability of finding hydrogen and oxygen atoms in a closed room is big..and yet there isnt a reaction even if the room is significantly heated up from sunlight.

 

[Jose Fly]

So God personally assembled every water molecule in the entire universe?

 

[painted wolf]

you realize that biochemists know that the body makes water from loose H ions and Oxygen inside itself all the time.

we don't explode you know. Neither do hydrogen fuel cells that use hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and water... no explosions.

wa:do

 

[Ginny]

In my opinion: For something to be a theory there must be scientific proof that it COULD be true, if it lacks any reliable evidence then it is not a theory, it is a guess. One of the reasons why I am an atheist is creationism. There is hard core tangible proof that the Earth formed over millions of years and humans evolved from apes. That proof keeps adding up. Creationism, however, lacks that. People say atheists do not have faith, perhaps the faith they are implying. I do have faith, I have faith in reality.

 

[Autodidact]

The good news is...that its probably more likely that god exists then it is for this to happen:

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

That's fascinating, but since evolution does not take place by chance, irrelevant. It sounds like you don't know what evolution is.

 

[Autodidact]

I dont.

You need a few things.

1. The right molecules
2. An electron configuration condusive for a reaction to take place
3. Collisions
4. Molecules with enough kinetic energy
5. Collisions with the right orientation
6. Activation energy

And you need god to make it into a living being. I can make plastic everyday.

Are you talking about abiogenesis? If so, start a thread; this one is about evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Abundant...yes maybe. But also conveniently abundant to make this evolution theory work?

What evolution theory are you talking about? This all sounds like abiogenesis, not evolution. Maybe you should find out what evolution theory is before you reject it. Just a suggestion.

And if all these things happened and started us off..why cant we just get it started agian? Its not that simple.

I don't know, but why are you talking about it in an evolution thread?

 

[rockondon]

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

This afternoon it was about 7 degrees hotter than it was this morning 8 hours previous. Assuming a constant increase of temperature, last week the earth's temperature must have been 147 degrees colder than it was now, and two weeks ago the temperature must have been below absolute zero. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few weeks.

The magnetic field is NOT in a constant rate of decay any more than atmospheric temperature is in this constant rate of increase. The magnetic field fluctuates and has been more of a straight line the last few centuries.

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year...Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10to the power of 89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

As shown in the last example, assuming a constant rate is foolish.
How well did mankind flourish during the ice age btw?

Or maybe i dont fall for the evolution theory. Which is mostly what it is.. A theory.

Quite right, just like cell theory and germ theory which are so overwhelmingly proven that it would be absurd to consider them to be anything other than facts. When a theory is proven beyond all doubt it is called...a theory. The term scientific 'theory' has nothing at all to do with uncertainty, it explains phenomena. When you say something is 'just a theory' all you are really saying is that you don't' know what a theory is. Circuit theory allows computers to function - do you believe that the idea that computers actually work is merely conjecture? Hardly.

Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups ...

Recently there have been YECs online in newsgroups...blah blah blah we can all play this stupid game.

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

And the odds of a particular arrangement of cells in a tree is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296...thats why trees don't exist. If I shuffle a deck of cards, the odds of getting any particular outcome is 1 in 8x10^67. Anything can be made to appear unlikely.

And the odds of letting go of a pebble and it falls straight down "by chance" is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296...so long as we pretend gravity (or evolution) is purely chance. Which they aren't.

The first life would have been a thousand times simpler than that modern cell - whose complexity is the result of billions of years of evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

The thing that strikes about the ID movement in particular... is that they are very poor pessimistic "scientists". And highly egocentric.
When they encounter a problem that they can not personally figure out, rather than investigate it further or ask for other experts opinions, they simply throw up their hands and loudly exlcaim: "God must have done it!" and walk away from the issue.
Here is the ego part... If they can't figure it out, no one can...ever.

Imagine if true science worked this way. If when Newton first pondered gravitation and hit a road block in his many years of study. If Pasteur had done so while pondering vaccination?

On the plus side this issue with ID is what makes them so prone to loosing in places like Dover. While they tag a problem with "goddidit" the scientific community continues to work on the problem and piece by piece figure it out.
They don't even investigate their own "Theory"... no ID scientist has ever published a paper in support of ID or demonstrated any sort of mechanism by which its supposed to happen.

wa:do