Evolution: A Fairytale For Grown-Ups!

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thanks for your courteous reply. If evolution does not deal with the origin of life question then why does it assume that from inorganic material the most basic lifeforms emerged?

The theory makes no such assumption.

Soul Winner wrote: »

When you get down to even the most basic of life forms the information required for them to simple exists is astronomical. The simplest of cells are made up of the most mind boggling network of complex intricate parts. The mathematical probability of just one of these parts coming into existence on its own never mind with all the other working parts along with it is in the order of magnitude akin to winning the lottery by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then doing this every week for the next 3000 years.

If we're going to go for funny analogies then really it would be more akin to having billions of individuals searching for an unimaginable number of lottery tickets with varying prizes over the course of billions of years with the added caveat that at each generation of successful searchers pass their methods on so that the following generation knows where to look and how. The failures die alone with no kids. This makes the probability of multiple wins much higher.

It's not a great analogy for either abiogenesis or evolution but I didn't pick it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m not saying that this is not how it happened, I’m just trying to point out that creationists are looked down upon for simply believing that there might be a supernatural (more natural) explanation to it rather than a purely ordinary natural explanation...

Not so. The criticism originates from their attacks on science itself, their attempts to subvert society so that it accepts both world views equally and their simultaneous baffling efforts to be accepted as a science while trying to call the scientific method into question and refusing to adopt testable hypotheses.

Soul Winner wrote: »

...which said explanation is still only theoretical in itself anyway.

"It's just a theory", right? To the average lay person "theory" means what scientists call "hypothesis". An initial position we adopt that must be testable. An assumption that must be provable. In science, "theory" means working model. "Theory" in science is what we get when a hypothesis has withstood rigorous testing, when all known observations fit the model. There is no higher status for scientific knowledge than theory.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I suggest you view this youtube video which explains why that mathematical probability calculation (which has been wheeled out by creationist before) is completely bogus. After this I suggest you watch the rest of the vidoes in the "Why do people laugh at creationists" series. It explains a whole lot.

Best series ever on creationism. Worth a look-see.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Were you there the second day? Did anyone ask any good questions?

I wasn't unfortunately. I don't know how many skeptics were there.

robindch I couldn't tell you who the lead creationist was.

iUseVi wrote: »

Best series ever on creationism. Worth a look-see.

i just watched that whole series. Its very good.