I hate intelligent design

Zelig · Jun 3, 2006, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiDri

It is hard for the human brain to grasp, but energy can not be created or destroyed -- what if in some form or another everything has always existed?

Erm, it has, as far as we can tell. In some form of matter/energy at least.

BryonB · Jun 3, 2006, 04:47 AM

[color=black]Your references to religion in relation to science make me think that you don't know your history very well. When religion got into trouble meddling in science was usually when the church came out in favor of a reigning theory of the day, declaring it to be the truth, and then later finding it to be false (i.e. earth=center of solar system, etc.) It makes me wonder, since Pope John Paul II endorsed the theory of evolution. I'd be worried!! These theories did not come from the Bible, however - at least not directly.

I see no real proof that the Bible and science are incompatible. Everything I see in nature leads me to believe that life on earth did not come about by random chance. The incredible diversity and complexity, sometimes with incredibly different creatures living in total interdependence on each other (i.e. plants that require incredibly specialized insects to cross-pollinate them, etc.) just doesn't add up to random chance to me. Whether micro-evolution has occurred since life began makes no real difference - it isn't at issue.

Do you know the amount of information contained in a single DNA strand? It is the equivalent of billions and billions of bits of information - which much be coded in the proper sequence! One bit out of sequence at the wrong location can render the information useless - or at least render the host organism dead.

I know of no living creature that does not have DNA. So I must assume that DNA is a pre-requisite to our known forms of life and reproduction, and reproduction a pre-requisite for life sustaining itself long enough for supposed evolution to have occurred. But wait, DNA by itself is useless, unless it is first contained within a living cell that knows how to use the encoded information. So where did such an incredible packaging of both life and such complex information come from - random combinations of mostly useless matter?

You want facts? Here's some facts:
[/color]

[color=black]Various protein molecules can have 50, 100, 200, 300, or even 400 linked amino acids - and each amino acid is made up of a special arrangement of 4 or 5 chemical elements! What are the odds of these forming spontaneously? Something on the order of 1 in 10 to the [/color][color=black]450th power[/color][color=black]!![/color]
[color=black]The probability for forming DNA proteins is even lower - on the order of 1 in 10[/color][color=black] to the 167,625th power[/color][color=black]!![/color]
[color=black]The probability of all of this combining together in a living cell that can use the information to reproduce life are even worse.[/color]
[color=black]Scientists generally consider any event with a probability of less than [/color][color=black]one chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion) to be impossible.[/color]

[color=black]So given the mere probabilties of spontaneous generation, we must arrive at the conclusion that it is scientifically impossible, and yet so many continue to believe that this is exactly what occurred.

One of the arguments against believing in the theory of creation has often been that it can't be proven, or that it isn't based on observable facts. As far as I can see, evolution from sponaneous life is impossible. How much faith does it take to believe that it all happened spontaneously? More than I have.

[/color][color=black]You obviously believe that the creation account in the Bible is less than improbable, but I'll take improbable over impossible. It's the only account that I've heard that seems even remotely probable. I'm not a proponent of "intelligent design," because I don't think the term adequately describes what happened.[/color]

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 07:41 AM

[color=black]

Quote:

Your references to religion in relation to science make me think that you don't know your history very well. When religion got into trouble meddling in science was usually when the church came out in favor of a reigning theory of the day, declaring it to be the truth, and then later finding it to be false (i.e. earth=center of solar system, etc.) It makes me wonder, since Pope John Paul II endorsed the theory of evolution. I'd be worried!! These theories did not come from the Bible, however - at least not directly.

[/color]
[color=black]
What are you on about? You do know that only in 1995 or something like that, the Chruch OFFICIALLY apopligised to dead Gallileo... They only want to believe and accept what makes their religon look good. Another example is that in the vatican, there are ads and goverment messages saying that Condoms don't work... Based off no science. It's just words to convince people to do something!

Quote:

I see no real proof that the Bible and science are incompatible. Everything I see in nature leads me to believe that life on earth did not come about by random chance. The incredible diversity and complexity, sometimes with incredibly different creatures living in total interdependence on each other (i.e. plants that require incredibly specialized insects to cross-pollinate them, etc.) just doesn't add up to random chance to me. Whether micro-evolution has occurred since life began makes no real difference - it isn't at issue.

So have you ever heard of extinction? Those plants that need ONE kind of insect evolved together... It's very easy to understand and there are millions of examples in nature. I mean, nature is a cruel viscious world where animal speices are being wiped out by others and more animals are being mutated and different over the ages. That's far from ideologic and all. Only religion thinks that religon can live with science. Science doesn't believe in religion... How can nature be the work of god when soooo many things are wrong with it?

Quote:

Do you know the amount of information contained in a single DNA strand? It is the equivalent of billions and billions of bits of information - which much be coded in the proper sequence! One bit out of sequence at the wrong location can render the information useless - or at least render the host organism dead.

WOW... Maybe that would explain all the sicknesses and birth defects of humans? And you know that DNA is different strands and lengths depending on the creature? The most ancient of animals and most primitive have tiny DNA stands... And slowly, with mutations that weren't dangerous to the creature (color transofrmation and all). I don't see what so "godlike" about it. Evolution is the whole theory that you go from simple to complicated with time... DNA is proof of that.

Quote:

I know of no living creature that does not have DNA. So I must assume that DNA is a pre-requisite to our known forms of life and reproduction, and reproduction a pre-requisite for life sustaining itself long enough for supposed evolution to have occurred. But wait, DNA by itself is useless, unless it is first contained within a living cell that knows how to use the encoded information. So where did such an incredible packaging of both life and such complex information come from - random combinations of mostly useless matter?

Well that's wrong... Many creatures called BACTERIA don't have any DNA at all but only RNA.... So wow, that entire arguement falls apart now doesn't it? You should follow science classes mate

[/color]
[color=black]

Quote:

One of the arguments against believing in the theory of creation has often been that it can't be proven, or that it isn't based on observable facts. As far as I can see, evolution from sponaneous life is impossible. How much faith does it take to believe that it all happened spontaneously? More than I have.

[/color]
[color=black]
[/color]
[color=black]Again, you don't read enough science to argue that... Nothing happened spontaniously and evoltuion doesn't say that. What they argue is that under the right conditions and with the right events (metoers and comets bringing alien ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, life is always posssible... Once you have organic compounds like ammoniac and glucuse, life isn't far behind and I won't go into details but the theories on the assembly of life from this is pretty much certain (though not a 100%). Oh when will the bashing end?
[/color]
[color=black]
[/color]
[color=black] [/color][color=black]

Quote:

You obviously believe that the creation account in the Bible is less than improbable, but I'll take improbable over impossible. It's the only account that I've heard that seems even remotely probable. I'm not a proponent of "intelligent design," because I don't think the term adequately describes what happened.

[/color]
[color=black]
[/color]
[color=black]No I don't take it as IMPROBABLE, I take it as IMPOSSIBLE which is the opposite of evolution. Come on, intelligent design means:[/color]

[color=black]A super being can do what he wants[/color]
[color=black]We are all being controlled[/color]
[color=black]We have no power to do anything the being doesn't want[/color]
[color=black]We are ignorant and have no control[/color]
[color=black]etc...[/color]

[color=black]That's just stupidity. Evolution is based off science which can be PROVEN with time and effort... Unlike ID which has to be believed in by BLIND FAITH and nothing else. So of course, you believe in religion you can believe in ID. But I'm sorry, that requires me to shut off my brain and I can just live with ignorance. I need everything around me to have physical and tangible proof. I don't believe in god one iota because there is no single proof about him. Either you believe in him or you don't. Same with ID! You put your brain aside and either you believe in that stuff or you don't.[/color]

[color=black]And again, only the most religious and adament of people refuse evolution...
[/color]

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB

Your references to religion in relation to science make me think that you don't know your history very well.

This comment makes me think you didnt read my comment.

I am assuming your refering to my comment btw - but its difficult to be sure, as your not quoting anyone/comments.

From Wikipedia, consistant with a show I seen on PBS:

Quote:

In 1611, Galileo went to Rome, where he joined the Accademia dei Lincei and observed sunspots. In 1612, opposition arose to the Copernican theories, which Galileo supported. In 1614, from the pulpit of Santa Maria Novella, Father Tommaso Caccini (1574-1648) denounced Galileo's opinions on the motion of the Earth, judging them dangerous and close to heresy. Galileo went to Rome to defend himself against these accusations, but, in 1616, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy because it was contrary to the accepted understanding of the Holy Scriptures. In 1622, Galileo wrote the The Assayer (Saggiatore), which was approved and published in 1623. In 1624, he developed the first known example of the microscope. In 1630, he returned to Rome to apply for a license to print the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in Florence in 1632. In October of that year, however, he was ordered to appear before the Holy Office in Rome. The court issued a sentence of condemnation and forced Galileo to abjure. As a result, he was confined in Siena and eventually, in December 1633, he was allowed to retire to his villa in Arcetri. In 1634, he was deprived of the support of his beloved daughter, Sister Maria Celeste (1600-1634), who died prematurely. In 1638, almost totally blind, Galileo published his final book, Two New Sciences, in Leiden. He died in Arcetri on January 8, 1642, in the company of his student Vincenzo Viviani.

I highlighted the important aspects for your convenience.

I bet they don't teach that in church...

So, I know enough about history, to point out, you don't like to read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB

When religion got into trouble meddling in science was usually when the church came out in favor of a reigning theory of the day, declaring it to be the truth, and then later finding it to be false (i.e. earth=center of solar system, etc.) It makes me wonder, since Pope John Paul II endorsed the theory of evolution. I'd be worried!! These theories did not come from the Bible, however - at least not directly.

I didnt say ANYTHING about the church getting in trouble, I said, the church CAUSES trouble for science. Like committing Galileo to house arrest simply because he voiced his notion that the earth wasnt the center of the universe.

Now why would (the then religious ran government) do such a thing, unless it threatened their belief systems?

AND

The pope was smart, theres overwealming evidence of evo. Sorry if that worries you. He did this NOT to start trouble with in the church, but to keep christianity from crumbling, perishiners in church and thus assets comming into the Vatican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB

I see no real proof that the Bible and science are incompatible. Everything I see in nature leads me to believe that life on earth did not come about by random chance. The incredible diversity and complexity, sometimes with incredibly different creatures living in total interdependence on each other (i.e. plants that require incredibly specialized insects to cross-pollinate them, etc.) just doesn't add up to random chance to me. Whether micro-evolution has occurred since life began makes no real difference - it isn't at issue.

Its because the bible is an editiable text. If you dont think they're capable of such things, your nieve.

Did you see the dateline special about 'gods banker' and how Paul II forfieted $250M that was used in a bank to launder mob funds? No proof of anything, but it certainly makes me wonder about the churches 'morality' to have had ties with the mob. (Why use a bank with a reputation for money laundering.??? )

Oh crap, back to the 'its too complex for it NOT to be god' argument - give that crap a rest, its NOT evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB

Do you know the amount of information contained in a single DNA strand? It is the equivalent of billions and billions of bits of information - which much be coded in the proper sequence! One bit out of sequence at the wrong location can render the information useless - or at least render the host organism dead.

Take a science class (that doesnt waste time on ID btw) - if that were true, you and I would have the same DNA, but were certain enough its unique enough to each person to be used as evidence of identification in a court of law. So there ARE many MILLIONS of combinations THAT DO WORK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB

You want facts? Here's some facts:

* Various protein molecules can have 50, 100, 200, 300, or even 400 linked amino acids - and each amino acid is made up of a special arrangement of 4 or 5 chemical elements! What are the odds of these forming spontaneously? Something on the order of 1 in 10 to the 450th power!!
* The probability for forming DNA proteins is even lower - on the order of 1 in 10 to the 167,625th power!!
* The probability of all of this combining together in a living cell that can use the information to reproduce life are even worse.
* Scientists generally consider any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion) to be impossible.

FINALLY some facts... whew! I was wondering when youd get to em...

Back to the 'Its so complex, god must be responsible' argument yet again. AGAIN, give that argument a rest. Its NOT evidence. YOUR ONLY facts prove its complex. ???

10 years ago no one thought we'd have nor need > terabye HDD - but here we are. Thanks to science. And NOT to god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB

One of the arguments against believing in the theory of creation has often been that it can't be proven, or that it isn't based on observable facts. As far as I can see, evolution from sponaneous life is impossible. How much faith does it take to believe that it all happened spontaneously? More than I have.

To have faith in anything is a mistake, it closes ones eyes from ever seeing the truth when it comes along.

Ill say it yet again - NO ON PUTS 100% FAITH IN ANY THEORY in the scientific community until its had its rounds of scrutiny, its ALL theory until, over time gets proven beyond ANY doubt. Like the 'earth <> center of the universe' type FACT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB

You obviously believe that the creation account in the Bible is less than improbable, but I'll take improbable over impossible. It's the only account that I've heard that seems even remotely probable. I'm not a proponent of "intelligent design," because I don't think the term adequately describes what happened.

I beleive NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN EITHER WAY. I beleive, YOU'LL beleive anything your religious leaders tell you. (and more sadly, defend it to the bitter end)

I ONLY believe evo is MORE PLAUASABLE than ID.

You keep mentioning faith, but you don't make distinctions between this and 'blind faith. A theory may require some level of faith to accept, but ID requires 100% blind faith.

Theres a reason ID is NOT in science class - its NOT SCIENCE. If/When it is, by all means - teach it. It will get my 'blessing'.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 09:15 AM

[color=black]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Oh when will the bashing end?

hehe... when his religious leader says its ok to change his mind.
[/color]

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 09:52 AM

Maddogg, we can go on forever. Honestly, we both say mostly the same thing to each of his arguments but he's just not stopping... I'm just glad that in Europe at least, ID isn't even MENTIONED anywhere and our teachers make fun of America who is refusing to teach evolution in some States. It's a pity but oh well, when you believe in god, everything can be justififed and thus, nothing but god satisfies

Glad to see though that you agree mostly with me

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 11:48 AM

What you guys are so ignorantly forgetting is that it doesn't just take someone who "believes in God" to disagree with macro evolution. It takes someone with a brain and his/her own theories... their own original thoughts. That seems to be what it missing in people who just believe anything they hear and taker it "as gospel"- yeah that's right, you take it as gospel. You know what that means right?

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 11:51 AM

Well then show me an article from a scientific journal refusing Evo? I mean, sure it's contested but in the scientific world, it's more or less accepted.

Just like some scientiest doubt that a meteor killed the Dinos... 90% it but 10% don't... That's still a mostly accepted theory too. (unless you don't believe in dino's at all

)

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Maddogg, we can go on forever. Honestly, we both say mostly the same thing to each of his arguments but he's just not stopping... I'm just glad that in Europe at least, ID isn't even MENTIONED anywhere and our teachers make fun of America who is refusing to teach evolution in some States. It's a pity but oh well, when you believe in god, everything can be justififed and thus, nothing but god satisfies

Glad to see though that you agree mostly with me

hehe - true... to debate religion is like a jumping into a life long relationship with your nemesis. Because science will ask the 'churchies' for proof of their claims - the churchies spew non-sense and the scientists spend half their life explaining how their 'proof' is not proof at all. As proven in this thread.

But, let me strighten out your misconceptions... its not that evo is refused, its been taught all along and still is AFAIK (other than in some *rogue* schools I suppose) - the heated debate here, is wheather ID is taught along side with evo in science class in public schools (typically in some states, in whats known as the 'bible belt', where baptist are more prevelent. Baptists, being a more strict and *assertive* bunch, offshoots of protestants IIRC, where many members are considered fanatical by the majority here)
And AFAIK - ID is loosing their battle for the most part, even here in a 'mostly religious' nation. (dont let those stats on that chart fool ya, Im fairly certain their skewed, or based on lying samples)

Many here won't publically admit to their 'shakey' faith, and say they DO belive in god when confronted/asked by a stranger, while their actions/behaviour clearly indicate they really are not.
For example: church attendance nationwide, is at a near all time low here ,but more and more people were indicated on our last census??. I personally see more and more abandoned churches, yet theres little new construction of them for the most part in many regions outside the bible belt. Seems their combining to optimise their finances.

But many 'churchy' people will still dispute evo in favor their fiction (and ID) as a defense mechanism. They tend to hurt the most, as they have ALL that money lost (to 'tithe' - is to give 10% of your earnings to the church) with no way to recover it, and finding their nearly forced to admit their faith is so far off, its scandalous.

You have to admit, its quite the ego bruiser, so....

I could just imagine what Greece was like when Zeus and Co, was finally, and officially declared a mythology subject, or just before it. I beleive we are seeing a similar situation in many parts of the country, if not the world, but, sadly not all - denial is a very powerful defense mechanism.

The church is still around, but ONLY because of their tenacity as demonstrated in this thread, but thats about it.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

What you guys are so ignorantly forgetting is that it doesn't just take someone who "believes in God" to disagree with macro evolution. It takes someone with a brain and his/her own theories... their own original thoughts. That seems to be what it missing in people who just believe anything they hear and taker it "as gospel"- yeah that's right, you take it as gospel. You know what that means right?

#1 - disproving evolution does NOT eqaute to PROVING ID - WE HAVE TAKEN NOTHING AS GOSPEL - And yes I DO know what that means.

THAT seems to be your mis-understanding. Do you even read posts????

It certainly appears not.

Now, Is that just lazyness, or 'troll-ness'??

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 12:08 PM

- years ago 90 percent of scientist all knew the earth was flat too.. and that the universe revolved around the earth.

BTW Einstein believed in God.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

THAT seems to be your mis-understanding. Do you even read posts????

It certainly appears not.

Now, Is that just lazyness, or 'troll-ness'??

Oh stfu with your "troll-ness".. who says I was referring to your posts?
-and you are right I try not to read your posts. Very long winded, repetitive, and quite boring... put me to sleep type posts.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:14 PM

Scientific Fact: to 'know' something TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLDEGE.

Link

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Oh stfu with your "troll-ness".. who says I was referring to your posts?
-and you are right I try not to read your posts. Very long winded, repetitive, and quite boring... put me to sleep type posts.

Oh, did I hit a nerve??? Sorry

And Sorry if facts are boring. And If I have to repeat myself to get you to understand a point, I will.

And dont tell me to stfu - I'll post what ever is allowed by the rules.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 12:20 PM

Below is an example of your inability to to think for yourself... You do not refute or disagree with something that proves your theory is imposable, yet you continue to argue..

Also the lame attempt at an analogy using a hard drive is frighteningly absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB
You want facts? Here's some facts:

* Various protein molecules can have 50, 100, 200, 300, or even 400 linked amino acids - and each amino acid is made up of a special arrangement of 4 or 5 chemical elements! What are the odds of these forming spontaneously? Something on the order of 1 in 10 to the 450th power!!
* The probability for forming DNA proteins is even lower - on the order of 1 in 10 to the 167,625th power!!
* The probability of all of this combining together in a living cell that can use the information to reproduce life are even worse.
* Scientists generally consider any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion) to be impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

FINALLY some facts... whew! I was wondering when youd get to em...

Back to the 'Its so complex, god must be responsible' argument yet again. AGAIN, give that argument a rest. Its NOT evidence. YOUR ONLY facts prove its complex. ???

10 years ago no one thought we'd have nor need > terabye HDD - but here we are. Thanks to science. And NOT to god.

-no you didn't hit a nerve... call me a troll and I will tell you to STFU.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

- years ago 90 percent of scientist all knew the earth was flat too.. and that the universe revolved around the earth.

And has since been dis-proven beyond ALL doubts. Your point please??

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Below is an example of your inability to to think for yourself... You do not refute or disagree with something that proves your theory is imposable, yet you continue to argue..

Also the lame attempt at an analogy using a hard drive is frighteningly absurd.

-no you didn't hit a nerve... call me a troll and I will tell you to STFU.

The KEY word was 'GENERALLY' - 'generally' DOES infer exception now doesnt it??

I didnt CALL you a troll I asked if your behaviour was 'troll-like' -

The HDD analogy was to prove that LARGE NUMBERS DO NOT EQUATE TO IMPOSSIBILITY. Just difficult or challenging.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

And has since been dis-proven beyond ALL doubts. Your point please??

The theory that by chance we sprung out of a puddle of goo also has been dis-proven beyond ALL doubt. Some still believe it proven by this thread. It is all part of the theory of evolution, and it is impossible by scientific standards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

I didnt CALL you a troll I asked if your behaviour was 'troll-like' -

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/subscrip...n=ucp&t=105891

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:40 PM

Once again (you make me repeat myself)

I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION - I AM PROVING ID IS BUNK.

Besides - evolution has been disproven beyond all doubt? HOW did you get that. ITS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION.

BUT, Its proven enough for a pope...

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

Once again (you make me repeat myself)

I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION - I AM PROVING ID IS BUNK.

Too bad you can't. The fact that Evolution preaches that life somehow randomly formed, and that is scientifically impossible should tell you something.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

and it is impossible by scientific standards.

Show me 1 thing thats considered 'impossible' by scientific standards??

And your link didnt work. btw.Something about a subscription.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Too bad you can't. The fact that Evolution preaches that life somehow randomly formed, and that is scientifically impossible should tell you something.

A complete thought please???

NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN of our origins - ITS ALL JUST THEORY.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Too bad you can't. The fact that Evolution preaches that life somehow randomly formed, and that is scientifically impossible should tell you something.

Oh and science supports that it 'MAGIACALLY' appeared - ??? thats a moronic notion.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 12:54 PM

You contradict yourself with almost every post.. it's actually pretty funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION - I AM PROVING ID IS BUNK.
NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN of our origins - ITS ALL JUST THEORY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

Show me 1 thing thats considered 'impossible' by scientific standards??

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryonB
You want facts? Here's some facts:

Various protein molecules can have 50, 100, 200, 300, or even 400 linked amino acids - and each amino acid is made up of a special arrangement of 4 or 5 chemical elements! What are the odds of these forming spontaneously? Something on the order of 1 in 10 to the 450th power!!
The probability for forming DNA proteins is even lower - on the order of 1 in 10 to the 167,625th power!!
The probability of all of this combining together in a living cell that can use the information to reproduce life are even worse.
Scientists generally consider any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion) to be impossible.
So given the mere probabilties of spontaneous generation, we must arrive at the conclusion that it is scientifically impossible, and yet so many continue to believe that this is exactly what occurred.

.

-none so blind than he that will not see.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

Oh and science supports that it 'MAGIACALLY' appeared - ??? thats a moronic notion.

As is the theory of Macro Evolution... so how does the theory of evolution say life started?

Everything I have heard any evolutionist say about that is either magical or moronic, take your pick.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showpost...&postcount=204

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

You contradict yourself with almost every post.. it's actually pretty funny.

.

-none so blind than he that will not see.

OK, I'll repeat myself YET AGAIN

Large numbers do NOT equate to impossibility - the hint there is the word 'generally'

I didnt contrdict my self. debunking pro-ID (which ARE ONLY anti-evo points) DOES NOT equate to me trying to prove evo.

Your lack of; logic - understanding - reading comprehension (choose the most appropiate one) explains alot about that huge post count your sportin'

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

As is the theory of Macro Evolution... so how does the theory of evolution say life started?

Everything I have heard any evolutionist say about that is either magical or moronic, take your pick.

This isnt a pro-evo thread is it? - Im sorry - I thougt it was an anti-ID thread.

AND - you forgot the choice of - UNDETERMINED. Thats my pick. How dense does one have to be to NOT get that point??

Edit:
Notice how Im keeping it short, so you dont fall asleep on me, or get lost in all them words.??

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

As is the theory of Macro Evolution... so how does the theory of evolution say life started?

Everything I have heard any evolutionist say about that is either magical or moronic, take your pick.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showpost...&postcount=204

Also - as your pointing out evolution is a 'wrapper' of multiple theories, that ARE NOT completely dependant upon one another.

How hard is THAT to understand?

Pompey · Jun 3, 2006, 01:16 PM

Those 'facts' posted by BryonB are useless, and misleading.
All those calculations are based on the complex life that exists now forming randomly, which is not what evolution states. It also relies on the product taking 1 certain form, another error as there are countless possibilities. His numbers did nothing more than show life is complex, which we know thanks tot he work of scientists and biologists

Furthermore; nobody said the odds were high. But a small chance (ill even say absolutely tiny) does not make it impossible. It also ignores the fact the many many trials could/would have taken place simultaneously. The likelihood of winning lotto 3 times in a row is miniscule, but not impossible.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

I didnt contrdict my self. debunking pro-ID (which ARE ONLY anti-evo points) DOES NOT equate to me trying to prove evo.

Spoken like a true democrat. Argue against something but provide no alternative or proof for your argument.

Jun 3, 2006, 04:47 AM	#182
BryonB HardwareHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 53 Rep Power: 0	[color=black]Your references to religion in relation to science make me think that you don't know your history very well. When religion got into trouble meddling in science was usually when the church came out in favor of a reigning theory of the day, declaring it to be the truth, and then later finding it to be false (i.e. earth=center of solar system, etc.) It makes me wonder, since Pope John Paul II endorsed the theory of evolution. I'd be worried!! These theories did not come from the Bible, however - at least not directly. I see no real proof that the Bible and science are incompatible. Everything I see in nature leads me to believe that life on earth did not come about by random chance. The incredible diversity and complexity, sometimes with incredibly different creatures living in total interdependence on each other (i.e. plants that require incredibly specialized insects to cross-pollinate them, etc.) just doesn't add up to random chance to me. Whether micro-evolution has occurred since life began makes no real difference - it isn't at issue. Do you know the amount of information contained in a single DNA strand? It is the equivalent of billions and billions of bits of information - which much be coded in the proper sequence! One bit out of sequence at the wrong location can render the information useless - or at least render the host organism dead. I know of no living creature that does not have DNA. So I must assume that DNA is a pre-requisite to our known forms of life and reproduction, and reproduction a pre-requisite for life sustaining itself long enough for supposed evolution to have occurred. But wait, DNA by itself is useless, unless it is first contained within a living cell that knows how to use the encoded information. So where did such an incredible packaging of both life and such complex information come from - random combinations of mostly useless matter? You want facts? Here's some facts: [/color] [color=black]Various protein molecules can have 50, 100, 200, 300, or even 400 linked amino acids - and each amino acid is made up of a special arrangement of 4 or 5 chemical elements! What are the odds of these forming spontaneously? Something on the order of 1 in 10 to the [/color][color=black]450th power[/color][color=black]!![/color] [color=black]The probability for forming DNA proteins is even lower - on the order of 1 in 10[/color][color=black] to the 167,625th power[/color][color=black]!![/color] [color=black]The probability of all of this combining together in a living cell that can use the information to reproduce life are even worse.[/color] [color=black]Scientists generally consider any event with a probability of less than [/color][color=black]one chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion) to be impossible.[/color] [color=black]So given the mere probabilties of spontaneous generation, we must arrive at the conclusion that it is scientifically impossible, and yet so many continue to believe that this is exactly what occurred. One of the arguments against believing in the theory of creation has often been that it can't be proven, or that it isn't based on observable facts. As far as I can see, evolution from sponaneous life is impossible. How much faith does it take to believe that it all happened spontaneously? More than I have. [/color][color=black]You obviously believe that the creation account in the Bible is less than improbable, but I'll take improbable over impossible. It's the only account that I've heard that seems even remotely probable. I'm not a proponent of "intelligent design," because I don't think the term adequately describes what happened.[/color]

Jun 3, 2006, 11:48 AM	#187
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	What you guys are so ignorantly forgetting is that it doesn't just take someone who "believes in God" to disagree with macro evolution. It takes someone with a brain and his/her own theories... their own original thoughts. That seems to be what it missing in people who just believe anything they hear and taker it "as gospel"- yeah that's right, you take it as gospel. You know what that means right? __________________

Jun 3, 2006, 12:08 PM	#191
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	- years ago 90 percent of scientist all knew the earth was flat too.. and that the universe revolved around the earth. BTW Einstein believed in God. __________________

Jun 3, 2006, 12:40 PM	#199
Maddogg6 Tail Razer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bernyurass, AZ - USA Posts: 4,027 Rep Power: 50	Once again (you make me repeat myself) I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION - I AM PROVING ID IS BUNK. Besides - evolution has been disproven beyond all doubt? HOW did you get that. ITS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. BUT, Its proven enough for a pope... Last edited by Maddogg6; Jun 3, 2006 at 12:51 PM.

Jun 3, 2006, 01:16 PM	#209
Pompey DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 362 Rep Power: 0	Those 'facts' posted by BryonB are useless, and misleading. All those calculations are based on the complex life that exists now forming randomly, which is not what evolution states. It also relies on the product taking 1 certain form, another error as there are countless possibilities. His numbers did nothing more than show life is complex, which we know thanks tot he work of scientists and biologists Furthermore; nobody said the odds were high. But a small chance (ill even say absolutely tiny) does not make it impossible. It also ignores the fact the many many trials could/would have taken place simultaneously. The likelihood of winning lotto 3 times in a row is miniscule, but not impossible. __________________ One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Jun 3, 2006, 09:52 AM	#186
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	Maddogg, we can go on forever. Honestly, we both say mostly the same thing to each of his arguments but he's just not stopping... I'm just glad that in Europe at least, ID isn't even MENTIONED anywhere and our teachers make fun of America who is refusing to teach evolution in some States. It's a pity but oh well, when you believe in god, everything can be justififed and thus, nothing but god satisfies Glad to see though that you agree mostly with me

Jun 3, 2006, 11:51 AM	#188
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	Well then show me an article from a scientific journal refusing Evo? I mean, sure it's contested but in the scientific world, it's more or less accepted. Just like some scientiest doubt that a meteor killed the Dinos... 90% it but 10% don't... That's still a mostly accepted theory too. (unless you don't believe in dino's at all )

Jun 3, 2006, 12:14 PM	#193
Maddogg6 Tail Razer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bernyurass, AZ - USA Posts: 4,027 Rep Power: 50	Scientific Fact: to 'know' something TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLDEGE. Link