Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, Hoyle was an atheist. Interesting statement. The desperation seems to be on the part of the believers in spontaneous generation. More and more honest scientists, regardless any belief or non belief they might hold, are realizing the impossibility of what they have believed. Hoyle's odds calculation is quite modest compared to some others done by atheists-, biochemists, statisticians, biologists etc. Proud believers in your religion are having to recant because the theology of the faith, objective scientific inquiry, is proving the foundation to be rotten. Some, as Dr. Wald, whom I quoted, choose to believe the impossible ( spontaneous generation) rather than accept the other alternative. No, the desperation is not with creationists, it is with those who must abandon the grail of magical natural processes, and realize we have been right all along
Please, I know all about it. Like Pilate, you are now trying to wash your hands of of that oh so fundamental first step of the magical mystery tour of evolution, that chemically produced very first living organism that started the show. Well, you can't have a chicken without the egg. So, are you confirming that life can only come from life, or are you hedging your bet ?But here you are obviously wrong. Like all micro evolutionists,
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution explains the tree of life from a common root, under the assumption of original duplicating root organisms whose origin is still unknown. And it is very plausible, if not necessary, that the origin of life does not follow the evolutionary paradigm at all.
Ciao
- viole
As long as you have a first living thing, you can have evolution. How that first living thing came into existence has no effect on whether or not it evolved into other forms later on. A divinely-created first organism works just as well as one created by abiogenesis or aliens or whatever else.
I must have missed it, when was the third possibility he demonstrated ? Aliens ? I assume he means creatures from the universe, which begs the question........................... We won't use the term "spontaneous generation", although I don't know why you are adverse to it, since, I assume, much better qualified scientists than you use it. No matter. The combination of non living chemicals in a heated primordial sea that produces a living organism, is an obsolete concept. Better ?
So then, life can only come from another form of life , right ?
I don't think we have enough information to know that with certainty either way. Heck, if God exists, then He'd be an exception to that rule, would He not? If (and this is a big "if") the Universe is infinitely large and uniform, then abiogenesis would be an inevitability as all possible events would have to happen somewhere. We do not know that the Universe is infinitely large, however, so that would just be speculation. I'm much more of the opinion that, if abiogenesis happened, then there was a process involved that was not entirely random.
I quoted him for exactly what he said. I have nor had any idea what he was worried about. He was worried. You are back to the desperate thing again. You seem to assume desperation where none exists, or are you just thinking a lot about desperation ? He had no worries about evolution being attacked in public schools.Those who believe in intelligent design believe in evolution, and the issue is about a single theory being taught, especially when it is coupled with spontaneous generation. Hmmmm, kind means species, just like modern biologyPoor Dr. Gould. I wondered how many times he had to spin in his grave considering how many desperate creationists in the quest for scientific confirmation quoted him as an example of anti evolution.
You seem to ignore entirely what he said. Which gives now overwhelming evidence that my interpretation of micro evolutionist was correct.
He just objected on the basic mechanisms of evolution (puntuated equilibrium vs. gradualism) , but he never doubted for a second about evolution and common descent (e.g. The hominous fish in our family album). He actually fought fiercely against any attack to evolution in public schools. Maybe its time to render him honor by quoting him correctly.
Yes, I quoted the Bible when I said that we and chimps are the same kind. Who else would use the word "kind" when applied to modern biology?
Ciao
- viole
Well, no, the universe isn't infinitely large, it is measured to be 14 - 15 billion light years across. If the process were not entirely random, what was it then ? Without a directed process from outside the universe, then everything within the universe is entirely random
About 46 billion light-years, actually. That's the diameter of the visible universe, not the universe as a whole. We don't know how large the entire universe is.
At least partly directed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Not all compounds are equally likely to form under given circumstances, not all compounds are equally stable, not all polymer sequences are equally likely, some chemicals are known to catalyst certain reactions on their own, etc.
The laws of physics are not random. Things fall down, not up. Hydrogen burns but helium doesn't. Electricity follows the path of least resistance, etc.
Really ? According to the magazine "Astronomy" The universe is 14-15 billion light years across they state it as a firm number, with no mention of " visible or invisible": simply the size of the universe. The laws of physics within the universe are not random, the results can be. 500 golf balls dropped from 10,000 feet, under the influence of a non random law of physics, will stop bouncing and rolling into a perfectly random pattern. The laws of physics and chemistry cannot account for the creation of a living organism from inert substances, whatever they are, period. It cannot happen
You know what I was talking about. You didn't miss my point. You quoted it, and even mentioned it in a post.
You must have misread, because 14-15 billion light years is the visible universe to us. We have not a clue as to how big the universe actually is, only how far out we've been able to see.
Why? Maybe because those who are not getting answers are not going to the Creator God asking the questions. I believe that God desires a one on one relationship and personal interaction with each person because that is what each human being was created for. If one ignores God or assumes they already have all the answers without seeking what He may have to say then why would answers or enlightenment be expected?
If that's what they really said, then they are wrong. I was also wrong with my initial number: it's actually 93 billion light-years across. 46 billion is actually the distance from here to the edge of the visible universe. The light from the oldest visible galaxies may only be 13.7 billion years old, but you can't simply divide that by the speed of light and arrive at a distance measurement of 13.7 billion light-years.The reason for this is because the universe is expanding, making it larger than what you would expect given its age. This is, unfortunately, a commonly repeated mistake, even for the Rose Center for Earth and Space. More information on that here.
Depends on the specifics. The final resting place of the balls isn't entirely random. If it was, then some of the balls would go shooting out into space or fall below the Earth's crust. Not all areas of Earth's crust are at the same height either, so more balls would end up rolling down slopes than sitting on top of hills.
No one claims that life came from inert substances. The closest thing we have to inert substances would be the noble gases, some of which can indeed react under the right circumstances. If you're going to say that abiogenesis is impossible, then you're going to need to support it and more importantly do so without straw-manning what the modern concept of abiogenesis is. No one says that simple chemicals spontaneously turned into a cell, for example.
Suddenly we are bobbing and weaving, so let me be perfectly clear. A living organism cold not have been produced from a primordial sea containing any combination of chemicals, minerals or any other non living substance, period. Did that cover everything for you, or add what you choose, s long as it isn't life. I have supported it, how much more do you require ? Pages ? I can produce pages. Volumes, I think I can do that. Atheist biochemists and Biologists, ? I can do that. Many many highly qualified scientists that are creationists, easily done. In fact, I really think the burden of proof is on you. You apparently accept this idea, so, produce proof that it occurred, could have occurred, with supporting evidence. I certainly can produce evidence that it did not and could not, and already have. I don't think you understand what randomness and probability really are. At least, according to the class I took on the subject, you don't. Randomness always exists within parameters, because parameters are restrictive doesn't mean what randomly happens within those parameters is less random. Otherwise, nothing could be random. The resting of a ball on a roulette wheel is totally random, even though the wheel restricts the ball from flying across the room or diving into the earth
LOL. Ok, you don't know how life started. I can prove how it didn't start. So now we have gone from the pat faith in spontaneous generation, to faith in nothing, I find it howlingly amusing that you are so hell bent on denying God, that you are willing to accept nothing to do so. Or as Dr. Wald said, who I think is much better qualified than you to evaluate the alternatives, " I will believe in the impossible because I am philosophically opposed to the alternative". At least he believes in what he knows is impossible, you because you are philosophically opposed, have and believe nothing. So it's she ? Physically, mentally, or by orientation ? I get really confused with the cabal members. It's kind of imprecise.