Once and for all I believe all established theories (I think at least) of the earth being round, relativity, gravity, thermodynamics, etc. I'm interested in particular in what I would call the hypothesis (some call it theory) of Evolution.
Well, we know the "where" and "when" because we can see other items in our universe moving. We can tell how fast they're moving, and in which direction they're moving. Based on those observations, we can tell that they're all diverging from a common point. And given their speeds (and the change in those speeds, if you want to get complicated), and their distances from that common point, we can tell how long they've been diverging. Thus, we know that 14.6 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe started out at the same point and was rapidly flung outward in all directions.
See example two (section 5D) on this proposed age of the universe we “know” to be true.
Where is the evidence? In fact some would argue that the likelihood of spontaneous regeneration is minuscule.
Of course it is. The odds are astronomically miniscule. But so are the odds of winning the lottery, yet every time, someone eventually does. The odds of having a planet with just the right mix of oxygen, and just the right amount of gravity, at just the right distance from a star that's just the right size are also miniscule.
Yet here we are.
Even things that are extremely unlikely become virtually inevitable when you have literally quintillions of chances (the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies, over the billions of years since the birth of the universe).
I’m glad you mentioned this. See example one (section 5C).
It's possible (probable?) that given enough time, and just the right "tweaking" of these molecular structures (via geologic heat and pressure, or electrical pulses from lightning) that at some point in our history, one of those crystals had its structure rearranged just right so as to form the first living organism on the planet, and started replicating.
See DoingHomework’s response below. So my question is where or from whom did you hear this from? Or is this something you developed on your own? If that explanation originated elsewhere, I would like to understand why you believed it. And if that statement is part of your own original thought, I would like to understand how you arrived at that conclusion.
I don't think any serious scientist proposes that like spontaneously started in a crystal. Crystals would be a poor place for it to happen for technical reasons. An amorphous soup is more likely.
proof? LOL, such double standards. where is the concrete proof of your deity's existence?
Welcome to the thread galactic
If you read the history of the thread I’m willing to at least contemplate the alternative view of say an atheist or another religion. I’m not interested in proving God’s existence. I'm not interested in being right I'm interested in evidence.
Evolution is a fact. We've seen it in action. We've literally seen new subspecies evolving out of existing ones. It's time to let this one go.
I’m interested in understanding the fundamental arguments for and against Evolution being fact. The issue here is that Theory of Evolution by DoingHomework’s scientific definition: 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena; i.e. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
requires objective, repeatable, and measurable evidence. I’m interested in discussion on the evidence that it is “fact.”
In regards to Evolution I propose the alternative definition for “theory”: 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. i.e. The Theories of Evolution, Big Bang, and Intelligent Design.
If it is fact then it can be objectively reproduced and the evidence can be measured.
To catch you up on the conversation: We agree that there is unconvincing evidence at best there are aliens out there. We agree we do not know with 100% certainty how the Big Bang or life on Earth began. And, I think, we agree at some point even faith (belief in something that cannot be proven but may have some evidence) has to enter the enter conversation.
Eagle, at some point, every belief requires a degree of "faith."
Let’s proceed to the next three arguments. The first three were just a warm-up. I’m really interested in your thoughts on these. I wonder who will actually attempt to tackle them… Fourth Argument:
Catch 22 Dilemma & Oxygen
The "catch 22" has been noted by evolutionist and molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have then is a sort of ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t we have none either." Even if the building blocks of life could survive the effects of intense ultraviolet radiation and form life spontaneously, the survival of any subsequent life forms would be impossible in the presence of such heavy ultraviolet light. Ozone must be present to protect any surface life from the deadly effects of ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Also the assumption that there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere is not borne out by the geologic evidence. Geologists have discovered evidence of abundant oxygen content in the oldest known rocks on earth. Evolutionist and molecular biologist Michael Denton: "Ominously, for believers in the traditional organic soup scenario, there is no clear geochemical evidence to exclude the possibility that oxygen was present in the Earth’s atmosphere soon after the formation of its crust." Fifth Argument:
Spontaneous Generation Probability
6A) Sir Frederick Hoyle
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.
Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000.
Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life.
This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees.
Hoyle 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 also concluded that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."
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.
5B) Harold Morowitz
A more detailed estimate for spontaneous generation has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that was super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. This number is so large that it would require several thousand books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that an entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!
5C) Let’s take an example:
Consider this. The odds of winning a state lottery are about 1 chance in ten million. The odds of someone winning the state lottery every single week from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!
5D) Let’s take a little more complex example:
Here's another great example of how chance disproves evolution theory. Suppose we have 10 small blank discs. We number them from 1 – 10 and as we do we throw each into a bucket. So in this example, the question is: How many attempts would it take to randomly draw out the discs in order from 1 to 10? Only one disc is randomly selected from the bucket at a time, noted, and tossed back in the bucket. What is the probability of selecting all ten discs in order?
Since each disc has only one number on it, there is one chance in ten (1/10) of selecting it. The probability of selecting the first one followed by the second one is 1/10 x 1/10 or 1 in 100. To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or 1x1010. This means that the discs would be selected in the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way, ‘chance’ requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.
Let's take that example one step further and say there is a bucket with 27 wooden squares inside. Each square has one letter of the alphabet on it and one square is blank. How many attempts would it take to randomly pull letters out one at a time in order to spell the phrase ‘the theory of evolution?’
Each letter of the alphabet plus one space has 1 chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase ‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore chance will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes.
This computes to only one success in a mind-boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3 x 1032). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 15 billion years, then nature could not even have created even this simple sentence, much less any protein, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation.
The information on the discs and squares in the examples above represent the genetic information in DNA. DNA is the storehouse of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until 2001 that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now know that the DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences.
Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill an entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica. It would take nature 25 billion years to create the correct sequence of 27 letters. Clearly, it could not have correctly sequenced 3 billion chemicals to make even the simplest life form. So if nature couldn’t create life, Who did? Sixth Argument:
Time & Equilibrium
There is one other hurdle that must be successfully cleared if the evolutionist’s scenario on the origin of life is to have credibility. This is the problem of chemical equilibrium. In any broth or solution, there is the tendency for the materials to become evenly distributed with time. This tendency is called the development of equilibrium.
For example, if a drop of red dye is put into a container of water the dye particles gradually disperse throughout the solution until the entire solution turns a dilute red color. The larger the volume of the solvent (i.e., the water in the dye example), the more dilute will be the solution once the dye particles have become evenly distributed. This dilutional effect is irreversibly tied to time. As time advances, the dye particles become evenly distributed until the solution reaches a state of chemical equilibrium.
Again the chemical reactions leading to the formation of DNA and proteins are reversible. This means that the building blocks of DNA and proteins are broken off of the chain just as easily as they are added. Consequently, the building blocks of life, if they survived the effects of oxygen and UV radiation, would constantly be combining and coming apart in the primordial soup. This combining and coming apart of chemical building blocks proceeds until a state of equilibrium is reached. In the case of amino acids and nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA and proteins will be predominantly unbounded when the solution is at equilibrium.
Since the natural tendency for the building blocks of life is to disperse and remain un-bonded, the question evolutionists must answer is how did the building blocks of life become bonded and stay bonded in a primordial soup which is steadily progressing towards equilibrium? When confronted with the problem of equilibrium, most evolutionists will appeal to the magic ingredient of time. Nobel Laureate George Wald attempted to explain: "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: Time itself performs the miracles."
Dr. Harold Blum, who is an evolutionist himself, points out that Wald’s faith
in the miraculous ingredient of time is mere wishful thinking. Prolonged time periods, he asserts, actually worsen the dilemma: "I think if I were rewriting this chapter [on the origin of life] completely, I should want to change the emphasis somewhat. I should want to play down still more the importance of the great amount of time available for highly improbable events to occur. One may take the view that the greater the time elapsed the greater should be the approach to equilibrium, the most probable state, and it seems that this ought to take precedence in our thinking over the idea that time provides the possibility for the occurrence of the highly improbable."
According to Dr. Blum, the magic bullet of time does not increase the likelihood that chains of DNA or proteins will form by chance chemistry. In fact, increasing the time factor actually ensures that any primordial soup would consist of predominantly unbonded amino acids and nucleotides!
See http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evo ... _life.html