"Evolution isn't science"

Oh and also yes the Christian Bible and I would say that the KJV is the most accurate. any other questions?

Yes, I have a couple: Are you aware that the KJV is based on some very questionable translations? Wouldn't you expect the original Hebrew and Greek texts to be the most accurate?
 
BTW folks,

Shouldn't we make the clarification of creation of the world/universe (Cosmology) and *Biological* evolution? They are two seperate things and lumping them together in one argument gives the false impression that if a hole can be found in one, the other obviously falls. Just as a simple argument, one could believe that the universe was created by a "supreme being" but that all life has arisen through evolutionary paths. (not neccasarily my view, but an example that we are really discussing *two* different phenomena).

basilio


In the minds of young earth creationists, they are very much related. If they can show that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then biological evolution falls apart because there is not enough time for speciation.
 
The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

I'm going to have a look at this a little later this afternoon. But it seems preposterous to me that a 1966 vintage computer would be adequate to model the complexity of organic chemistry to a degree of accuracy that would allow anyone to conclude that there was zero probability of abiogenisis ever occurring. Even the most modern super-computers are not up to this task. And anyway, models are not reality. They are simple models of reality that we use to try to understand aspects of the way the real world works. But they cannot "prove" or "disprove" things because they are incomplete representations of reality. Have you ever heard the old "it's mathematically impossible for bumble bees to fly" thing? Well it's not (obviously) impossible for bumble bees to fly. It was simply that the mathematical model being used was inadequate to describe all of the relevant parameters involved in bumble bee flight.
 
The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

ok here's a critique.....

Schroeder cites a Wistar institute conference as showing evidence of the improbability of evolution. The symposium was transcribed from audio and published in 1967 as Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, a Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology April 25 and 26, 1966, Paul Moorhead and Martin Kaplan, eds. Needless to say, this is quite out of date. Worse, it does not support Schroeder at all. Only one paper comes anywhere near proposing that the origin of life and subsequent evolution is improbable: Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" (pp. 5-20). He does not really argue that evolution is improbable, but rather that no present theory accounts for certain peculiarities of life on earth, especially the fact that all living organisms are composed of a very tiny fraction of all the possible proteins.

In particular, Eden argues that given all "polypeptide chains of length 250 [amino acids] or less...There are about 20^250 such words or about 10^325" (p. 7). This number is ripe for quoting, but it does not stand as the odds against life, and even Eden did not even imply such a meaning--to the contrary, he admits that perhaps "functionally useful proteins are very common in this space [of 10^325 arrangements]," and facing tough criticism in a discussion period (where his paper was torn apart, pp. 12-9) he was forced to admit again that perhaps "there are other domains in this tremendous space which are equally likely to be carriers of life" (p. 15). But his main argument is that life is concentrated around a tiny fraction of this possible protein development "space" and we have yet to explain why--although his critics point out why in discussion: once one system involving a score of proteins was selected, none others could compete even if they were to arise, thus explaining why all life has been built on one tiny set of proteins. One thing that even his critics in discussion missed is the fact that his number is wrong: he only calculates the number of those chains that are 250 acids long, but he refers to all those and all smaller chains, and to include all of those he must sum the total combinations for every chain from length 1 to 250. Of course, the number "250" is entirely arbitrary to begin with. He could have picked 100, 400, or 20. He gives no arguments for his choice, and as we have seen, this can have nothing to do with the first life, whose chain-length cannot be known or even guessed at [5].

Among the huge flaws in Eden's paper, pointed out by his critics, is that he somehow calculates, without explanation, that 120 point mutations would require 2,700,000 generations (among other things, he assumes a ridiculously low mutation rate of 1 in 1 million offspring). But in reality, even if only 1 mutation dominates a population every 20 generations, it will only take 2400 generations to complete a 120-point change--and that even assumes only 1 point mutation per generation, yet chromosome mixing and gene-pool variation will naturally produce many at a time, and mix and match as mating proceeds. Moreover, a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations, and will also be subject to further genetic improvements even before it has reached dominance. I discuss all of these problems in my analysis of Schroeder above. But in the same Wistar symposium publication, C. H. Waddington (in his "Summary Discussion") hits the nail so square on the head that I will quote his remarks at great length:

The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

not quite as you describe it......
 
Last edited:
ok here's a critique.....

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

not quite as you describe it......

I was just sitting down to see what I could find out about this. I'm glad I had a look in here first. It's interesting that the word used is "improbable" rather than "impossible" as JF seems to think. Improbable is relative of course. There are different degrees of improbability. It's improbable that I'll get "Momspam" from my mother in the next five minutes, but it's probable that she'll Email several examples of cutesy crap and/or hysterical political tracts to me in the next five days (yes, I love my Mom very much, but sheesh!). It's improbable that a large asteroid or comet will strike the Earth in the next 100 years, but in 100,000,000 years it's frighteningly probable. This relates to JF's earlier question about "worshiping time" (whatever that means). Of course not anything is possible in millions or billions of years, but some very improbable things can become virtually inevitable given enough time.
 
Again, we are finding that the ranters who appear here seem to not have had much of a basic education,

Projection.

He worships his god, his god made everything, therefore we worship time because it made everything. Time is our god.

Yes it is stupid but there you go.`
 
It's improbable that I'll get "Momspam" from my mother in the next five minutes, but it's probable that she'll Email several examples of cutesy crap and/or hysterical political tracts to me in the next five days (yes, I love my Mom very much, but sheesh!).

Crossing your eyes causes cancer!!
 
lmao, whats a creationist doing on a science forum anyway? are you trying to "save" us? these are the types of creationists i cant stand, shouldnt you be at church giving your pastor money that he can use to lure boys into his bedroom?
 
lmao, whats a creationist doing on a science forum anyway? are you trying to "save" us? these are the types of creationists i cant stand, shouldnt you be at church giving your pastor money that he can use to lure boys into his bedroom?

That was uncalled for.
 
I waited all day to come here and see the text book quotes.

Where are they???

Oh, the avatar was animated by Paul H. He did such a cool job that I had to use it instead of the boring old unanimated avatar.

So, nuff about boring ol' avatars... Where is JF? I'm dying of curiosity here :boggled:

Okay, no JF. We can spank Duck though right? He was mean. I'm no gleaming example of skeptic patience and tolerance with my own example of expasperation in this very thread, but Duck was MEAN.
 
When I look at the Bible, I see a document that was written with the understanding of people a few thousand years ago.

That was written back in the time when a single person would see perhaps seven thousand individual stars in the sky.
And would come across so few species of animal in their lives that they could envision fitting some of each on one big ship.
 
Just to lighten the mood, my friend sent this to me today:
20070119.gif

From here.
 
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain
When I look at the Bible, I see a document that was written with the understanding of people a few thousand years ago.

That was written back in the time when a single person would see perhaps seven thousand individual stars in the sky.
And would come across so few species of animal in their lives that they could envision fitting some of each on one big ship.
It was also written at a time where a man was to be pitied if he had no sons, so pitied that the daughters must be compelled to hate themselves for being girls so much that to alleviate their guilt they must bear the poor man a son themselves since his wife was turned into a pillar of salt.

30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father." 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [1] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [2] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

As far as the incest, it is made clear that Lot was not a willing participant in that event. His daughters, realizing that Lot had no sons to carry on his line, caused Lot to become drunk, and then had sex with him so that they could bear him sons. This was their idea, not Lot's; and again, this was a case where a lesser eveil was chosen (incest between two daughters and their father) in order to prevent a greater evil (Lot having no sons to carry on his line).
http://www.westegg.com/morgan/bible.html

Yes, Lot is faultless, and girls are garbage. Such nice teachings this bible has. Yet, evolution is EVIL!! This new knowledge we have about the world around us is such blasephemy in comparison to what we find written in the bible.

Yes, let's just stick to old ways and ignore the fact that the moon is also not a light. That's much better than seeing the wonders of REALITY.

I'm still waiting for the text book quotes.
 
Last edited:
And would come across so few species of animal in their lives that they could envision fitting some of each on one big ship.

I've invented a term for that in modern times. I like to call it "kindergarten zoology". Ancient tribes can be excused for thinking this way, but I mean come on! Today we know that Noah would fill the ark up with beetles and frogs and ask God "Errrm... How many of these was I supposed to build?".
 
I'm still trying to figure out what jesus_freak's stance and argument IS. I don't think it has been clearly stated.


I invite him to do so, as coherently as he/she/it is able.

Basically, there is no evidence that he/she/it would possibly accept or comprehend that would prove that evolution is, in fact true--

However, when it comes to the "god went poof" biblical creation story, he/she/it needs absolutely no evidence whatsoever because some invisible someone or other inspired whoever it was that wrote the words many years after the big poof--and this invisible entity also inspired subsequent folks as these stories were transcribed, translated, edited, interpreted, etc. through the last 6000 years. Now do you understand. If not, maybe it's because you didn't immerse yourself in religion long enough to become that stupid.
 
I've invented a term for that in modern times. I like to call it "kindergarten zoology". Ancient tribes can be excused for thinking this way, but I mean come on! Today we know that Noah would fill the ark up with beetles and frogs and ask God "Errrm... How many of these was I supposed to build?".

not to mention the problem of predator and prey--the dinosaurs, the scat and the scat cleaners...etc.

I don't know if religion makes people stupid or if the stupid are more likely to be religious--but the correlation makes me wish there really would be a rapture soon...
 

Back
Top Bottom