Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Brazosgrad]

Wait, if we knew what is the answer to the universe, life and everything, our being here wouln't be so intersting expirience, right?

42. there is no universe. we are all just individual cells in a giant living being called "time". Move along now.

[toad]

As for our planet, think through it how you will it came down to raw luck. Call it divine intervention if you like. Regardless, we won the universal lottery with our planet. We have life and all our surrounding planets do not, what ever helps you sleep at night.

Some more thoughts,
RNA/DNA describe some cellular activate they do not create life.
The natural creation of amino acids/proteins that are the base building blocks of "life as we know it" has been proven multiple times.
The current cience/science is the transition of the building blocks to more complex organic life. That research has had a dramatic impact on health/genetic disorders, targeted virus cures, and life extension.

@WD-40: If you want to look for the missing link between monkeys and humans just look around your family gene pool. I am sure you could find a few clues as I have

[WD-40]

@WD-40: If you want to look for the missing link between monkeys and humans just look around your family gene pool. I am sure you could find a few clues as I have

Personally, I think if the scientists just paid a visit to the History Channel's "Swamp People" set, they'd find an assload of 'missing links' running around and spitting teeth at each other, thus proving into 'Law' that evolution happened.

[Bryant]

The Big Bang Theory is currently the best explanation of how the Universe we know today came to be.

Exactly, it is the best purely scientific explanation. And this is were the argument becomes pointless. If you're looking for me to prove to you a better scientific explanation, you're never going to get it. So basically this argument boils down to: do you believe in science or God...

Saying Evolution does not exist is like saying Gravity does not exist.

You could probably be a good politician, already using ridiculous statements to 'prove' your points.

[THEWULFMAN]

Wait, if we knew what is the answer to the universe, life and everything, our being here wouln't be so intersting expirience, right?

42. there is no universe. we are all just individual cells in a giant living being called "time". Move along now.

YES.


But4srs. If we knew everything, I think it would be more interesting, not less.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

@ Yanoda

I never claimed that humans just made something up, i do believe that their theory was based on decades of thinking...
Nor did i deny that life evolves, do note there is a diffrence between life evolving and the evolution theory.

And yes i do know that the expiriment in 1953 was prooving that proteins can be made by these simple chemicals, however many cientists believed that due to this expiriment all life could be made out of these chemicals wich wasn't the case.
Till the experiment in 2009 they couldn't proove that RNA can be created by these chemicals, however even now many cientists such as Robert Shapiro do not believe this expirement to be sufficient.
This could be an endless debate, but i'm going to narrow it down why some cientists believe in evolution, yet not in the evolution theory while others do believe in it.

A protein molecule can be formed from 50 to thousands of amino acids, while these aren't just ramdomly put together, it has to be in the right order.
A average functional protein in a simple cel contains 200 amino acids, yet these cells contain thousands of diffrent proteins.
Now science calculated the probablity of a protein with only 100 amino acids comming to existance on earth by itself to 1 on a billiard so that's:
1/1.000.000.000.000.000 chance of 1 protein comming to exist by itself on earth, iv'e done some calculations myself and it gave me a headache.

So basicly it's 1 on a billiard chance of a protein comming to existance on the globe no please add to this the chance of a RNA molecule comming to existance ON THE SAME PLACE on this earth, and add another chance of "coincidence" that these 2 happen to work together and create self-replicating life.
Don't forget to add the posiblity of the big bang theory putting the earth at the right position and all that.
And this would only create a SIMPLE cell not a complex one.
So even tough some here say "the odds can be beaten and must have been beaten else we wouldn't be here discussing this" i can say sure, but the evolution theory is one of the 3 theories that i know that made life as we know it.

And now this is even funnier, what does the fact that in 1953 cientists that made a protein molecule mean?
Does it mean that life can beat the 1 to a billiard odds or does it mean inteligent life was able to replicate something that "could" lead to life?

Just saying at the moment i know 3 theories of the creation of life(not going to debate big bang here)
1- The theory life beat the 1 to billion odds alongside all of the other odds
2- The theory life does come from evolution but that humans just haven't figuered it out yet(like many cientists who don't believe in the EV theory believe in)
3- The theory life has been created by something far complexer then us.

Now "IMAGEN" a far more complex life form triggered it all and created life as we know it, this life form mostly called god.
I've read here a few comments about the 7 days of creation, wich even for a god sounds idiotic as in imposible, i agree on this, but i've been asked to research the evolution theory quite some times in this thread, just asking did y'all check the other theory?
Well about these 7 days i got something that i call interesting
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. "2 Peter 3:8

So if you where to believe in creationism and of course in the book that relates to it, it would not be 7 days, it would be 7000 thousand years.....just imagen what a normal human could discover living 7000 years without dying, let alone if it where something as complex as this life form.

MT

[Darth Crater]

The Big Bang Theory is currently the best explanation of how the Universe we know today came to be.

Exactly, it is the best purely scientific explanation. And this is were the argument becomes pointless. If you're looking for me to prove to you a better scientific explanation, you're never going to get it. So basically this argument boils down to: do you believe in science or God...

Why does believing in God have to make you oppose science? We use science to attempt to explain, understand, and improve the world. The data and conclusions we get don't care whether you think there's a creator behind everything or not.

MT: With regards to the three hypotheses (not theories) you present, as far as I know, we only have evidence that the first is possible. Thus, it's accepted pending further evidence.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

MT: With regards to the three hypotheses (not theories) you present, as far as I know, we only have evidence that the first is possible. Thus, it's accepted pending further evidence.

You don't want to believe how many holes are there in the evolution theory....

1- If there ever was a Big Bang - who or what caused it to happen? How can something (a lot, actually everything) come from nothing?(since we didn't know what was there at that time) Wild theories like the completely unproven evolutionary string theory require a lot more 'faith' than accepting a Creator God
(Steven Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientist alive, made this startling admission during the 1997 PBS program, Universe.)

2-The natural laws that govern the universe and our world are perfectly fine tuned: Even minor changes in the constants of these laws and/or the natural or chemical properties of the elements critical to life would have destroyed life before it existed. How can these natural laws be so perfectly balanced and designed without a Designer?
Paul Davies , God and the New Physics (1983), p.189)

3- Chances of finding a similar habitable planet like Earth suited for life in our Milky Way galaxy or even in the entire universe are practically zero.
(Evolutionary astronomers Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee , Rare Earth (2000), chapter 12)

4- Modern science has reached the unanimous conclusion that life on a planet like earth could not have started by mere chance. The complex building blocks of the simplest living cell – proteins, DNA and molecular machines – do not allow for random assembly even through long periods of time. Despite decades of intense research, origin-of-life scientists have found no evolutionary explanation to explain how life could have started by natural processes alone.
(Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life (2005), p.46-50)

5- No mechanism for species to evolve. Natural selection is just variation within a species. Genetic mutations are required to evolve from one species into the next, however mutations are not common and mostly neutral. If they happen, they are almost always harmful not beneficial. The occurrence of many small, beneficial steps of mutations is against all odds and has never been observed.
(James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, 1999, p.25)

6- The fossil record. There are no intermediate species in the fossil record. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, species would evolve to more complex new species by a series of gradual mutations. However, despite of over 100+ years of extensive studies of the fossil record, no intermediate species have been discovered. On the contrary, the Cambrian Explosion shows the almost “overnight” appearance of the body plans of all modern day life forms at about the same moment in time.
(Paleontologist Harry Whittington, The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary, as published in Evolutionary Biology, volume 25 (1991), p.294)

7-The existence of so called irreducible complex molecular machines cannot be explained by gradual, 'evolutionary' evolvement of the components of these machines, as these systems can only perform if all components are present. Therefore, gradual “evolution” is not possible.
(Dr. Michael Behe, Darwin ’s Black Box (1996), p.70-71)

PS. these are quotes placed into simpler more understandable sentences, if you want the original quote just ask, i wanted to add em but the post would be bigger then any ever before, and i didn't make in into easier sentences either don't wanna take credit for this

So just like STEVEN HAWKINGS said i find it easier to believe creationalism then the odds given to me, what i think has been the main problem for creationalism are all the diffrent religions that make their own story about hell and all that B-[[poo]] however cientists can't agree either on their own theories or hypotheses...

MT

[Yanoda]

You could probably be a good politician, already using ridiculous statements to 'prove' your points.

Ridiculous? What I was trying to convey was that Evolution (in scientific terms) is inherent in the world & universe, just like Gravity is inherent in the world & Universe.

Concerning Probability about amino acids:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
This explains everything about your last post MT.

In science, we do not go in the direction of God/Deity. They/it cannot be measured, researched or analyzed, therefore we cannot say that God(s) exist.
Reading and enjoying the Bible is OK, but don't equate it to science and research. There are many things that are flawed within the Bible in explaining phenomenons in our world, written by humans ('who believed the Earth was flat') that lived over 2000 years ago.
7000 Thousand years in cosmological terms is still very, very short. As a vague example: 7000 years in cosmological time is like 1 second of human life.

Cheers

Yanoda

PS: It's Billion, not Billiard. Billiard is a game

Edit:
MT, all your points have been debunked already.

[THEWULFMAN]

Ugh. The problem I have with your way of thinking is you act like god and science can't or don't go hand in hand. I'm taking it on faith that God exists, I believe in that. I can look at solid proof that evolution exists in some way. They are more or less the same thing for me.

If evolution is not how god creates life(whether directly or indirectly), then how does he do it?

Some of your so called "facts" are false. I suggest you study a lot more on paleontology before you try and say evolution is impossible.


By the way, don't follow what Darwin said like On the Origin of Species is a bible. He was the first, doesn't mean he is right. How we understand evolution changes all the time.