Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
Nope, this is an original article by myself. You can bookmark this page the same as anything else on the web. In fact, it is less likely to dissappear here than on many web sites.
I put Darwin's quote on the top for reference. While evolutionists constantly change their statements, the basis of the theory remains the same and evolution essentially stands and falls by Darwin's statement at the beginning.
I wish I would have bet as to when the first attack by an evolutionist would come. The thing that surprises me, though, is that it would be without any substance whatsoever so early in the debate. Congrats, elbucko, you have set the tone for the rest of your buddies.
Gore spent a considerable amount of time bringing something tangible to the table, and the above is all you can muster? Sad.
MM
Once that is done, you are essentially left with the claim that order can’t increase in a closed system (e.g., the whole watch or solar system model versus life metaphor). This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That law, however, only applies in a closed system. Since the Earth is not a closed system, but is constantly bathed in powerful light energy from the Sun, the 2nd Law does not apply. And indeed, it’s commonsensical that life would not exist without the Sun.
So you have proven little, except that religious fundamentalism is a continuing embarrassment to thinking conservatives.
God created the world in 6 days - the theory
The universe is 12 billion years old - the evidence (from Hubble)
Therefore by your criteria God does not exist. However, I believe both in evolution and God, and in the nose on the front of my plain face. So, I think you are hallucinating.
I can also tolerate a greater level of perceptual uncertainty than most seem capable of. Even assuming that I accepted the impossibility of abiogenesis as currently conceived, then I would simply say that something comparable had to have taken place at some point in the past that remains as yet unexplained. The fact that no one has been brilliant enough to figure that out does not alter the fact that it must have taken place. Moreover, it is fallacious to assume that something which does not readily occur in the present environment (to our knowledge) did not readily occur in some past environment. Finally, however low the plausibility, it does not alter the fact that a particular event occurred nonetheless when the consequences of that event are self-evident.
I beg your pardon, ostentation is not tangibility. Convolution does not clarify. From what I can see of the presentation, it is wordy, poorly organized and senseless obfuscation.
God is always elegant and simple in His miracle of Creation, even to the use of evolution to achieve the divine.
What, pray tell, is your theory? That all existing species were made in their current form, that fossils are tricks the devil made to fool us, that evolution in historical times (e.g., wild grasses to wheat, wolves to many specialized forms of dogs, such as the ultra-sensitive-smelling bloodhound) is trivial and could never produce anything "truly" new even though great changes have been made in 5,000 years, and the earth is 1,000,000 times older than that? (Sort of like how the continents, although they move an inch a year, could never actually drift across the globe?)
Is there no evidence against such theories?
And what exactly does ad hominem comment on the racism of Darwin (a racism expressed by virtually every educated person in the first half of the 19th century) have to do with the accuracy of his scientific-historical theory?
Nothing at all, but if you hang around a bit, you might get to see the gore3000 lecture on Why It Is Wrong To Smear People Who Aren't Around To Defend Themselves (© - gore3000, patent pending)...
No, the argument is much deeper than that. I am not just speaking of a laboratory setting, I am speaking of almost any setting at all. It is the question of millions of monkeys trying to write a new Shakesperian play. Give them trillions of years, they still will not write anything like that.
But if a self-replicating cell of a simpler type can exist (perhaps a lipid membrane enclosing a few protein or RNA fragments, 1/1000 the complexity of the simplest currently feasible cell, and the “laboratory,” instead of ~1 cubic meter is instead the world’s oceans (1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers, or 1,370,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters), and the “experiment,” instead of taking, say, 10 years, takes 4,000,000,000 years, then the process becomes 5.48E+29 (548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times more likely to produce life.
Well, you have several problems with the statement above. The biggest is that you cannot have a living organism which is that simple. Let's look at some of the absolute essentials:
1. you need a system for replication, this is not so easy as it sounds. Viri have to 'borrow' the replicating system of true living things.
2. you need an excretory system - to dispose of waste.
3. you need a nutrition system - and this is where it really gets to be impossible. For nourishing a living thing you need either to produce your own nourishment as plants do or eat other living things as animals do. Problem with the first life is that you do not have any other creatures to eat so you have to make your own. This requires photosynthesis or chemosynthesis. Either one is a very complex process requiring many genes some of which are quite complex.
In fact the number of DNA base pairs I gave is more favorable than most scientists would postulate. The smallest living things have some 1,000,000 DNA base pairs and some 600 genes. Very few scientists would believe that anything even a quarter that size would have the capability of replicating and providing its own nourishment system. So as far as science goes, your proposition is impossible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.