Why don't you accept abiogenesis and evolution?

[Godslove]

I'm interested in seeing why some people refuse to accept abiogenesis evolution as the explanation to how life came into being and how it got to this stage.

Try to keep it simple.

Simple to under stand with out God there would be no world no creation no intelligence. Evolution is brought to the mind of people who do not want to believe in a God, That created this world and all of his children. It is so simple to find the truth Pray and ask for your self if God is real or not and if you ask with real intent you will receive an answer to your question. But remember Pride, Pride stops many from finding the truth for they think for them selves and take no though to ask. Trying asking and see for your self what happens Amen.

 

[Autodidact]

Simple to under stand with out God there would be no world no creation no intelligence.

Neither Evolution nor abiogenesis have anything to do with whether or not there is a God. The word you are looking for is "atheism," which is completely different.

Evolution is brought to the mind of people who do not want to believe in a God, That created this world and all of his children.

No, most people who accept that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is correct also believe in God.

It is so simple to find the truth Pray and ask for your self if God is real or not and if you ask with real intent you will receive an answer to your question.

Did that. Answer: No. But it's irrelevant to this thread.

But remember Pride, Pride stops many from finding the truth for they think for them selves and take no though to ask. Trying asking and see for your self what happens Amen.

O.K. Now, meanwhile, back to ToE, which has nothing to do with this question.

 

[Evandr]

I'm interested in seeing why some people refuse to accept abiogenesis evolution as the explanation to how life came into being and how it got to this stage.

Try to keep it simple.

It didn't take much research to be overloaded with information about why abiogenesis was virtually impossible. One thing that struck me is the number of reputable scholars that openly admitted the theory of evolution requires assumptions that are not possible yet they still choose to believe in evolution. Go figure
Because I cannot paraphrase it into simpler terms I will cut and paste a piece of information located here
Mathematical Probability Shows Evolution is Ridiculous | Evolution is mathematically impossible.

quote:
In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life.
1. H.P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," J. Theoretical Biology, (1977), 67, pp.337-398.
end quote:

I found it interesting that the numbers here would require the age of the universe to be many many times what it is to be played out just once. Also interesting is the fact that NASA thinks the impossible has happened many times because they believe that the universe has decayed and then been re-established many times. The number associated with this theory, 1/10340,000,000 is greater than the sum total of all the protons and neutrons (along with all the other sub-atomic particles) that are calculated to exist in the entire universe. Even in the face of all this and much much more that supports intellegent design, you still cling to the theory of evolution - WOW

 

[Evandr]

From To Believe Evolution, Mathematically, You Have A Greater Faith Than I referenced from mathematics, as a universal language - The Internet Encyclopedia of Science

In the 1970's British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth - a bacterium.......
.......After completing his research, Hoyle stated that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacterium "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. Hoyle also stated:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle's calculations may seem impressive, but they don't even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

I especially like the bit about the 747 - But Hey - It could happen .. .. ..

 

[darkendless]

From To Believe Evolution, Mathematically, You Have A Greater Faith Than I referenced from mathematics, as a universal language - The Internet Encyclopedia of Science


I especially like the bit about the 747 - But Hey - It could happen .. .. ..

So therefore you will completely ignore the multitude of evidence supporting evolution (minus the beginning) in favour of a fairytale? The bible is as probable as the story of Troy. Like i've said before many time, evolution is keeping your house standing up

 

[Evandr]

So therefore you will completely ignore the multitude of evidence supporting evolution (minus the beginning) in favour of a fairytale? The bible is as probable as the story of Troy. Like i've said before many time, evolution is keeping your house standing up

Then we must simply agree to disagree - :beach:

 

[Evandr]

So therefore you will completely ignore the multitude of evidence supporting evolution (minus the beginning) in favour of a fairytale? The bible is as probable as the story of Troy. Like i've said before many time, evolution is keeping your house standing up

I am not suprised by your attitude, you are in good company.

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954:
"One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."........
........According to Wald, it's not a matter of the evidence; it's a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like, and cannot accept the alternative: that a transcendent Creator created all life on earth. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible," in order to cling to their belief that the universe is a closed system. A system that has no room for such a Creator.

I have another question: Why in the preceeding 60 million years did over 360,000 distinct species supposidly "evolve" just to stop evolving 6000 years ago? There is no evidence that any of the seven trials that define an evolution of a species has been met regardless of the fact that only one of the seven need be met to make such a definition. The theory of evolution has to reach back a long way to defend itself, a long way indeed!

 

[darkendless]

I am not suprised by your attitude, you are in good company.



I have another question: Why in the preceeding 60 million years did over 360,000 distinct species supposidly "evolve" just to stop evolving 6000 years ago? There is no evidence that any of the seven trials that define an evolution of a species has been met regardless of the fact that only one of the seven need be met to make such a definition. The theory of evolution has to reach back a long way to defend itself, a long way indeed!

We've been evolving for 4.5 billion years sir, and we just don't evolve visually. We become resistant to diseases and viruses that would have wiped us out 100,000 years ago. Im no biologist though, ask painted wolf, im sure he'd love to explain things to you.
Im in good company because if we stand around a borehole at work, we can see millions of years of biogeochemical processes. People are quick to criticise methods such as the rock cycle and the way certain professions explain and employ soil formation and degredation, but none of them can come up with anything better. They also ignore the fact that many luxeries they enjoy are based on these so called "assumptions" we make.

I hate it how its so easy to criticise evolution yet when it comes to finding a better alternative, we get given some rediculous fairytale and a creator. All because the Big Bang cannot be explained. So 4.5 billion years of processes that can be observed are insignificant?

 

[LuisDantas]

Then we must simply agree to disagree - :beach:

No, you shouldn't. Favoring superstition over proven fact is quite pointless, really.

 

[Autodidact]

It didn't take much research to be overloaded with information about why abiogenesis was virtually impossible. One thing that struck me is the number of reputable scholars that openly admitted the theory of evolution requires assumptions that are not possible yet they still choose to believe in evolution. Go figure

Really? (1) Name a single Biologist who says this (2) Name a single such assumption.
Do you think Biologists are all dishonest, or just really stupid?

 

[Autodidact]

It didn't take much research to be overloaded with information about why abiogenesis was virtually impossible. One thing that struck me is the number of reputable scholars that openly admitted the theory of evolution requires assumptions that are not possible yet they still choose to believe in evolution. Go figure
Because I cannot paraphrase it into simpler terms I will cut and paste a piece of information located here
Mathematical Probability Shows Evolution is Ridiculous | Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Well I clicked on your link--couldn't figure out what moron's site it's from, but apparently s/he is not a Biologist, because he or she doesn't seem to understand the first thing about the Theory of Evolution (ToE), which is that it is not "by chance." So nothing on that site has any relevance to the actual ToE.
Do you think you understand what ToE says? Because you don't seem to, and it's not that complicated. Would you like me to explain it to you, or do you prefer to oppose a non-existent theory, exposing your ignorance to general ridicule?

I found it interesting that the numbers here would require the age of the universe to be many many times what it is to be played out just once. Also interesting is the fact that NASA thinks the impossible has happened many times because they believe that the universe has decayed and then been re-established many times. The number associated with this theory, 1/10340,000,000 is greater than the sum total of all the protons and neutrons (along with all the other sub-atomic particles) that are calculated to exist in the entire universe. Even in the face of all this and much much more that supports intellegent design, you still cling to the theory of evolution - WOW

But since the number has nothing to do with ToE, it's irrelevant.
What do you think "intelligent design" means?

 

[Autodidact]

From To Believe Evolution, Mathematically, You Have A Greater Faith Than I referenced from mathematics, as a universal language - The Internet Encyclopedia of Science


I especially like the bit about the 747 - But Hey - It could happen .. .. ..

Wow, yet another ignoramus who doesn't know that (1) ToE has nothing to do with the origin of life (2) neither ToE nor abiogenesis relies on random chance. Again, if you would like to me explain what the actual ToE says, so you can stop making these errors based on sheer ignorance, I am happy to do. Just let me know if you prefer your ignorance, though, many people do.

Also the author seems to think there are two opposing theories, evolution and Christianity. That's completely false, as they are in two different fields and have nothing to do with each other, unless you stupidly allow your religion to seep into your science, much like the people who used to believe that Zues threw thunderbolts down to earth. You wouldn't make that dumb mistake, would you?

 

[Autodidact]

Then we must simply agree to disagree - :beach:

Why, you're not interested in the evidence?

 

[Autodidact]

I am not suprised by your attitude, you are in good company.

Yes, almost every Biologist in the world, and everyone who accepts science as a method for learning about the world.

I have another question: Why in the preceeding 60 million years did over 360,000 distinct species supposidly "evolve" just to stop evolving 6000 years ago? There is no evidence that any of the seven trials that define an evolution of a species has been met regardless of the fact that only one of the seven need be met to make such a definition. The theory of evolution has to reach back a long way to defend itself, a long way indeed!

They didn't. Evolution is going on right now, and new species have been observed coming in to existence in the lab and the field.

What "seven trials" might you be talking about?

 

[camanintx]

From To Believe Evolution, Mathematically, You Have A Greater Faith Than I referenced from mathematics, as a universal language - The Internet Encyclopedia of Science

Do you really think that someone can assign meaningful probabilities to a process that no one fully understands yet?

 

[Luminous]

:sarcastic: evolution(which is a process) is so much less likely than an ever-existing god portraid by any of the religions

 

[Luminous]

:sarcastic: I agree with the article science is a 'false' religion that inspires blind believes. The Writer's Religion is far more likely.

 

[camanintx]

:sarcastic: evolution(which is a process) is so much less likely than an ever-existing god portraid by any of the religions

How so? Most of the God's portrayed are virtually impossible while evolution has been observed.

 

[Autodidact]

:sarcastic: evolution(which is a process) is so much less likely than an ever-existing god portraid by any of the religions

1. They're not mutually exclusive.
2. Really? Why?

 

[Autodidact]

:sarcastic: I agree with the article science is a 'false' religion that inspires blind believes. The Writer's Religion is far more likely.

Get away from the computer! It's of science, the false religion!

So, just out of curiosity, is it all science you reject, or only Biology?