Darwin's theory

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 09:45PM

endacl wrote: »

!

Periodically! I'm intrigued. We've met?

Pm?

Sorry, I couldn't possibly make contact. Considering your family were involved in THAT scandal. Terrible business.

endacl · 12-10-2014 10:10PM

smcgiff wrote: »

Sorry, I couldn't possibly make contact. Considering your family were involved in THAT scandal. Terrible business.

Indeed. I could lose my job if I was ever identified on here. I'd totally have to fire myself.

J C · 12-10-2014 10:11PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by kingchess
I wonder how many scientists who are not followers of the bible/koran believe in Creation theory??are there any experts who believe that theory who are members of ,for example, the hindu faith,or of any other faith??

kingchess
Sorry to butt in but does anyone know ???-maybe J C???

Don't know about other religions ... but Prof Sir Fred Hoyle and Prof Sir Francis Crick were two Atheists who recognized that Materialistic Evolution was mathematically impossible and they provided the basic maths and logical basis for the Intelligent Design movement within Biology:-

Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute

"To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. " Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Life Itself (1981) p.88

Fred Hoyle (1915 – 2001) Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'. "Hoyle on Evolution" Nature November 12, 1981 p.105

"At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. "The Big Bang in Astronomy" New Scientist November 19, 1981 pp.521-527

"Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10^15, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than on a par in 10^5. Because the fine details of the surface shape can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not 'piling on the agony' by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities we are including are quite enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10^20 or obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form.

By itself, this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shout at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2000=10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." Evolution from Space (1981) p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. " Evolution from Space (1981) p.130

endacl · 12-10-2014 10:14PM

Any chance you could go easy on the very BLUE!!!!! font? It's a little jarring when using the dark boards skin.

Ta.

J C · 12-10-2014 10:22PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're quoting papers from 1981, and they're discussing the origin of life, not evolution.

They were talking about the origins of life and its supposed 'evolution'.

J C · 12-10-2014 10:31PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Everything you quoted was about the origin of life.

Even if they were about evolution, they're from 1981. It would be standard practice to back up such dated evidence with something more recent. As a scientist I'm sure you already know this though :pac:

Maths doesn't change irrespective of the date it's done.:pac:

catallus · 12-10-2014 10:35PM

J C wrote: »

Maths doesn't change irrespective of the date it's done.

Who are we to fathom the logic of those who reject the obvious tenets of culture?

Nescience is a bottomless pit in which they have no choice but to wail and gnash their teeth at the truth.

kingchess · 12-10-2014 10:35PM

so only scientists from maybe two of the three Abrahamic faiths(excluding Judaism??) believe in creation theory?you would think that if the theory was correct people from other faiths would be easily convinced by the facts??

PopePalpatine · 12-10-2014 10:41PM

Remind me, who ran the industrial schools and Magdalene Laundries? Whoever they were, they shat on the idea of liberty.

catallus · 12-10-2014 10:42PM

Ah, Popephilistine (sic) raises his head

Hi pope!

J C · 12-10-2014 10:47PM

catallus wrote: »

Ah, Popephilistine (sic) raises his head

Hi pope!

... surely 'your holiness' would be the correct formal greeting ... would it not?:):D

kingchess · 12-10-2014 10:49PM

catallus wrote: »

Ah, Popephilistine (sic) raises his head

Hi pope!

kingchess wrote: »

so only scientists from maybe two of the three Abrahamic faiths(excluding Judaism??) believe in creation theory?you would think that if the theory was correct people from other faiths would be easily convinced by the facts??

hi Catallus-do you know if scientists from other faiths back the theory of creation?

J C · 12-10-2014 10:50PM

kingchess wrote: »

so only scientists from maybe two of the three Abrahamic faiths(excluding Judaism??) believe in creation theory?you would think that if the theory was correct people from other faiths would be easily convinced by the facts??

I know many Creationists who are Jews.

... and I have cited two Atheists ... who laid the foundations for Intelligent Design.

SaveOurLyric · 12-10-2014 10:54PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

They really didn't though.

You argue your case very convincingly. I cannot find a fault in you expertly explained logic. Such elegance. Well done. We are all now convinced.

catallus · 12-10-2014 10:54PM

kingchess wrote: »

hi Catallus-do you know if scientists from other faiths back the theory of creation?

Sigh, we've all been over this before.

Genesis is an allegory.

Scientists have their own makey-uppy story of creation (The Big Bang Theory)

PopePalpatine · 12-10-2014 10:58PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You argue your case very convincingly. I cannot find a fault in you expertly explained logic. Such elegance. Well done. We are all now convinced.

It's better than yours, which is "durrrr its true becuz bibul".

This would be a good start for you and your kind.

kingchess · 12-10-2014 11:06PM

so you are saying that no scientist from a non-Abrahamic faith backs the creation theory????

Pherekydes · 12-10-2014 11:10PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You argue your case very convincingly. I cannot find a fault in you expertly explained logic. Such elegance. Well done. We are all now convinced.

If anyone laid the foundations for intelligent design surely it was the one true dog, no?

SaveOurLyric · 12-10-2014 11:18PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's better than yours, which is "durrrr its true becuz bibul".

This would be a good start for you and your kind.

Thanks. But am already familiar with that view of the scientific process. But it is not the only one. There are others also offering a system for deep understanding. But many here seem to be closed to any but the limited view of what they see as the 'only' scientific way.

Wibbs · 12-10-2014 11:53PM

J C wrote: »

The Isrealites who wrote the Old Testament ... and were called 'goat herders' by M5 .... did.

Actually no they didn't. Or at least those who built the pyramids weren't slaves. They were free men, commoners of the kingdom who laboured in the task in the downtime part of the growing season. They were paid in food and beer(good call) and were provided with medical attention and the option of being buried next to the pharaoh. It was a religious and community driven undertaking. The much later Jewish texts mention enslavement because they were considered enemies of Egypt and had their arses kicked more than once by Pharonic armies and that memory would have been current within their set of cultural memes.

J C wrote: »

I will.

Acts 7:9-10
9 And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him,

10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

As has been pointed out Egyptian records make no mention of Moses or any of that. No plagues or Jews fleeing. Interestingly Moses is, or could be an Egyptian name. It means "son of"

catallus wrote: »

Scientists have their own makey-uppy story of creation (The Big Bang Theory)

A "makey-uppy story" that at least has much observable evidence to back up the general notion that all matter in the universe is flying away from a singular point in the past. Don't get me wrong I personally see all sorts of holes in some aspects of current cosmology. EG "dark" matter and energy. When calculations were made and there was a large deficit in observable matter and energy, rather than consider that the maths underlining the theory might be suspect current science seemed to get very closed minded and IMH invented Dark stuff as a fudge. Too much like "here be dragons" or "terra incognita" dressed up in mathematical onanism for my liking. However it doesn't take away from the clear observable evidence that all matter and energy in the universe seems to have come from a singularity 15(?) billion years ago. It just means we have more to discover and discover it we will. Do NOT get me started on "string theory". Again IMH more mathematical onanism and unprovable with it.

Oh by the by JC, what about those pesky Neandertals and Erectus and Denisovans? Where do they fit in? How many Adams were there?

catallus · 13-10-2014 12:01AM

I'm all for onanism, but I hope we're all agreed that dragons aren't real.

(because they wouldn't get on the Ark.)

catallus · 13-10-2014 12:04AM

They could have.

I'm just saying they didn't!

Jesus!

obplayer · 13-10-2014 12:14AM

catallus wrote: »

I'm all for onanism, but I hope we're all agreed that dragons aren't real.

(because they wouldn't get on the Ark.)

No not all creationists are agreed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sK6tkcxAHIw

EoghanIRL · 13-10-2014 12:15AM

EoghanIRL · 13-10-2014 12:25AM

Jc consider this .
As a scientist if you have absolute proof of something and someone told you that you were wrong or incorrect then you wouldn't be happy about it , would you ?

So as a creationist you believe Your god is the one true god .
So why do you respect the views of other religions which are contrary to yours and also which undermine your beliefs .

It's just contradictory really .

Squeedily Spooch · 13-10-2014 12:29AM

That's why Creation Science isn't a real thing, science shouldn't need a backstory or a book of myths/morality tales to accompany it. It's just data and evidence without talking snakes and animals on a boat.

catallus · 13-10-2014 12:34AM

That's like saying Social Science isn't a real thing.

Squeedily Spooch · 13-10-2014 12:46AM

Social Science has observable data, Creation Science doesn't. Social Science covers things like antropology and economics,language etc. which can be observed and studied.
And again real science doesn't require a mythology book to hinge it's "science" on.

catallus · 13-10-2014 12:56AM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

And again real science doesn't require a mythology book to hinge it's "science" on.

Hmmmm. Debatable. What about Descartes and Newton and all that came before? Do you think modern science stands alone, with no basis in imagination? Is the scientific method not a human invention?

Try not to be dazzled by the embroidery.

EoghanIRL · 13-10-2014 01:01AM

catallus wrote: »

Hmmmm. Debatable. What about Descartes and Newton and all that came before? Do you think modern science stands alone, with no basis in imagination? Is the scientific method not a human invention?

Try not to be dazzled by the embroidery.

The bible was a human invention ffs .

Darwin's theory

Comments