|
Replies: 74
| visibility 11
|
Legend [18067]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8999
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Well, seems that we need more particiaption here
Oct 6, 2021, 7:52 AM
|
|
I mean, lets discuss something everyone can argue about - Like evolution! 
I'll go first - put this together especially for P&R:
Regarding evolution, something must be aware of its environment before it can adapt to its environment. Without awareness, adaptation is not possible, nor is it plausible. And even with awareness, how does a micro-organism become a man since it must also become skilled in genetic engineering to achieve [desired] results. Should such a thing as [desired] results even exist in a micro-organism to begin with.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Well, seems that we need more particiaption here
Oct 6, 2021, 7:53 AM
|
|
If you were a hot dog and were starving, would you eat yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18067]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8999
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: Well, seems that we need more particiaption here
Oct 6, 2021, 7:55 AM
|
|
lol. I appreciate the hard hitting first response of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15764]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17389
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Don’t jerk us around, Huntclub. It’s a simple question.
Oct 6, 2021, 11:20 AM
|
|
A baby could answer it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
So you're saying physical mutations have to be coupled with
Oct 6, 2021, 7:58 AM
|
|
mental awareness?
That's not what natural selection is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4068]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8184
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Well, seems that we need more particiaption here
Oct 6, 2021, 8:07 AM
|
|
Why is self awareness a requirement for evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [98351]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65245
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I'm not sure you know how this evolution thing works
Oct 6, 2021, 8:09 AM
|
|
Ultimately, the living thing doesn't adapt itself, nature adapts the creature, possibly to be better able to adapt itself, but still, death is as big a part of natural selection as life. Now I can post a picture of a supermodel, and then post a picture of Janet Reno. We can then vote on who is "hotter". Most will agree Pamela Anderson in her prime, was hotter than Janet Reno, in her prime. Ok, so the question is, how much of that is YOUR opinion, and how much of that is evolution saying pork her.....? Humm.....
As for "awareness", not all living creatures are "aware". Some adaptations occur in non sentient animals through death versus survival. Those who survive longer, breed better, have more offspring, and others die earlier, and don't reproduce. Like a skeeter in the swamp. Or a fire ant.
Sickle cell....we call it a disease. It can kill people. So why does it exist? Well, if it kills you it kills you in your 30's and later in life. AFTER your reproductive years. In places with malaria, that kills the YOUNG at very high rates, that "disease" is an evolutionary advantage in allowing you to have immunity to malaria, at the expense of a long life after reproduction. So having sickle cell and immunity to malaria and dying at 38yo, after having fathered 12 children, is better than not having it, and dying at 10yo of malaria, before having ANY children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The mechanism for evolution is natural selection
Oct 6, 2021, 8:41 AM
|
|
which seems logical and plausible to my mind, and it doesn't take "awareness".
An example: An African savannah has trees with leaves that are well above the ground. The giraffes with the longest necks can most easily reach this food. Therefore, giraffes with longer necks are more likely to live longer. Therefore, giraffes with longer necks produce more baby giraffes than those with shorter necks. Thus, the average neck length of giraffes increases over many generations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
That's not evolution.***
Oct 6, 2021, 8:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
OK. Well, it is in the context of the OP.***
Oct 6, 2021, 8:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
That's an argument against evolution right there.
Oct 6, 2021, 8:53 AM
|
|
The OP subsitutes one term for the other, though they are not the same, so the next guy uses that as justification to do the same, so within one response the conversation has deteriorated into irrelevance. Entropy. Evolution requires that we continue down that devolving stream until out pops a new Nobel paper on a completely different subject. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
How has it deteriorated into irrelevance
Oct 6, 2021, 8:54 AM
|
|
by my comment, if my comment stays in context with the OP? Is that the opposite of irrelevance?
Wouldn't someone using the word in a *different* context from the, be less relevant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
A conversation that interchanges those two terms is
Oct 6, 2021, 8:58 AM
|
|
irrelevant, because they don't mean the same thing.
See? In one response we're arguing over definitions, even though there is no argument about it. They don't mean the same.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think you're talking "capital E" EVOLUTION
Oct 6, 2021, 9:03 AM
[ in reply to That's an argument against evolution right there. ] |
|
Like the big THEORY for how we all got here.
I'm using the word in a more generic sense, "little e," as I though the OP was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Like, I think the logical concept behind
Oct 6, 2021, 9:05 AM
|
|
natural selection is sound. But that doesn't mean I don't believe than man was created literally by the hand of God out of the dust of the ground. So, I believe evolution happens, but I don't believe man evolved from anything, because that's not what the Bible says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
That's just crazy to me. You believe that some invisible
Oct 6, 2021, 9:07 AM
|
|
being took dirt and made it into a human 6000 years ago, but the idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor is too far fetched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Read my post again. I didn't say it was far-fetched at all.
Oct 6, 2021, 9:11 AM
|
|
It was more the opposite. I think it's a wonderful and logical explanation for how we got here. But it's not what the Bible says, so therefore it's not what I believe is true.
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Ah, so anything that makes sense is thrown in the trash
Oct 6, 2021, 9:14 AM
|
|
because a book written 2000 years ago by second and third hand accounts from people who were barely literate says "nu-uh"
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Not correct.
Oct 6, 2021, 9:20 AM
|
|
1 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Using scripture to explain why scripture is true.
Oct 6, 2021, 9:21 AM
|
|
Come on man, I've been to church more times than most pastors. I've heard all of these.
And you have to believe I've been to church more times than most pastors because I said it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
OK***
Oct 6, 2021, 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Got it. Understand. But its an important distinction that
Oct 6, 2021, 10:15 AM
[ in reply to I think you're talking "capital E" EVOLUTION ] |
|
shouldnt have been blurred by the OP. No one here would dispute the fact that birds beaks grow longer if the flowers get bigger, and very few if any would doubt that mutations in beak length genes cause this. If that is all we are discussing, it is hardly worth the time spent this morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Nope. Asked and answered.***
Oct 6, 2021, 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yep. It does.
Oct 6, 2021, 8:59 AM
|
|
You'll pardon me if I take the word of the scientists who know more about this over yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32275]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10485
Joined: 1/28/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43004
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Adaptation. Not the same thing.
Oct 6, 2021, 11:00 AM
|
|
This was discussed elsewhere in the thread. It is unfortunate that the terms were interchanged at the beginning.
"Evolution" is not an advantageous random mutation of a gene. The term for that is: "An advantageous random mutation of a gene."
"Adaptation" is the incorporation of that change into the species: IE, all birds in a species have longer beaks than they once did. No new species is created.
"Evolution" is the changing of one species into another.
Take dna from one of the ancient short necked giraffes. Clone it. Can it then reproduce with a giraffe today? If so, no evolution has occurred. Adaptation has.
And I'm not saying that has never happened. I dont know that anyone actually knows whether it has or hasn't. The issue is whether evolution is the explanation for life we see.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
As a conversation starter, good effort: one has to argue
Oct 6, 2021, 8:41 AM
|
|
for awareness or for random mutation/natural selection. If the latter, the math doesn't work. Not even close. But does it account for adaptation (a term some use interchangeably with 'evolution' to confuse the issue)? Sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Explain to me like I'm a kid in a science class
Oct 6, 2021, 8:54 AM
|
|
How the "math doesn't work".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Not enough chances for the proposed event to occur.***
Oct 6, 2021, 8:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Which proposed event?***
Oct 6, 2021, 9:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I get to choose? Okay. The materialist is stuck with the
Oct 6, 2021, 9:13 AM
|
|
idea that everything is naturally occurring, even the source of matter. That's fine. This means that evolution can't be argued by beginning somewhere downstream: the materialist has to start at the beginning.
The chance that proteins naturally aligned themselves into replicating dna (or maybe its rna, I forget which), when expressed as 1/X, X is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. There is not controversy about this number, is generally accepted, recalculated again in Dr Koonin's book (The Logic of Chance). Koonin, an atheist himself, says life did not originate in this universe. I realize I am speaking to a hypothetical school child, but I have to leave it to you to confirm Koonin's bona fides and alignment with the biological community: they cannot be higher.
If it didn't start here, then where and how? At that point one has to rest on a predetermined starting place. Koonin, the atheist, has to rely on an as yet unsupported idea as to how it might have happened. He honestly admits that this is the case with him. Another would say God produced life. Then the issue of whether God exists becomes a different subject.
But as to evolution, no, the math doesn't work. Not even close. Life didn't begin by the random process that allegedly then guided it. That is just a thing that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You seem to be narrowing your argument
Oct 6, 2021, 9:40 AM
|
|
To evolution and God/a creator being separate concepts, or that an evolution argument solely embraces a Big Bang or some other "chance" creation. Why couldn't the concept of a creator and evolution co-exist?
To address your probabilities you cite, and I'm going to take your word on it that they're accurate, to quote Dumb and Dumber, "So you're saying there's a chance?" You cite the extreme unlikelihood, but not impossibility.
When we discuss scientific and mathematical impossibilities, then we also have to dismiss much of the body of work of the Bible. The Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve story isn't possible. Noah's Ark isn't possible, and I'm going to keep harping on this one. An argument against evolution and in support of Noah's Ark can't be taken seriously. The idea that the world is 6,000 years old isn't possible.
Thus, I say that it's possible evolution is real (and science favors me here) AND there exists the possibility of a creator who put it in motion.
Now, if we go back to Noah's Ark and you're of the "Well, God finds a way" variety, I'll ask you to apply that same argument to the statistics you cited.
Hope that wasn't too ad hominem for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Not ad hominem. Irrational. Not you, the argument.
Oct 6, 2021, 10:07 AM
|
|
You do not know what I might say about Noah, so you propose that my answer has to be X or Y, and given those two possibilities my thoughts on evolution must be A or B. That is simply a straw man. I can tell you that the person you imagine does not exist in this conversation.
There is no proposal here that the explanation for life as we see it today is in any way affected by the age of the earth or the identity of Noah. You are free to 'harp on' that as much as you think is necessary for you, but it has no effect on random selection as an explanation for emergence of life.
And yes, if the chance is 1/10 to some impossibly large power, and one responds with, "Well, we're here, so it must have happened anyway", sure, that is a position one can choose to hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I'm saying what is, that the two don't mean the same.***
Oct 6, 2021, 8:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
The definition may not be the same but they are related
Oct 6, 2021, 9:04 AM
|
|
natural selection allows for adaptation over time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Sorry, my fault: adaptation and evolution are not the same.***
Oct 6, 2021, 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
But adaptation is included in evolution. They are not
Oct 6, 2021, 9:15 AM
|
|
mutually exclusive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
That's the question we're discussing. One can't say,
Oct 6, 2021, 9:20 AM
|
|
"Adaptation is a part of evolution, therefore if we see adaptation we are seeing evolution." Question Begging 101.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I'm confused on why we can't say that
Oct 6, 2021, 9:22 AM
|
|
please explain further on how they are mutually exclusive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
See below.***
Oct 6, 2021, 9:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
IE: A longer beak is not a new species, a new animal.
Oct 6, 2021, 9:25 AM
[ in reply to That's the question we're discussing. One can't say, ] |
|
One is adaption, the other evolution.
Once we are discussion evolution, we are talking about more than simple the change of one animal into another (if that actually has happened). The materialist who believes all things came about through natural means must take evolution back to the original starting point, the first life. An evolution discussion cannot honestly demand that it start someone downstream, with life already existing. The random selection process must start at the beginning of life, and it can't pass that hurdle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Ok I'm getting your position now. Yes adaptation is much
Oct 6, 2021, 9:27 AM
|
|
more short term. But adaptation over time is evolution
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Again, that is the question. Is there a point where
Oct 6, 2021, 9:33 AM
|
|
adaptation occurred to the point where the next organism born could not reproduce with its parent or grandparent? I do not not know whether that has been shown to have happened, and even if so, the proposal has to extend to the point that all living things are explained by the process, in spite of the entropic principle that would seem to prevent it. The math gets really big.
But even that is not the the end of the matter, pardon the pun. That process has to explain the emergence of life in the first place. And that has been all but disproven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
It's not species A, birth to species B
Oct 6, 2021, 9:52 AM
|
|
It's genetic traits changing overtime until we decide that species A and species F are different.
An ape has never birth a human. But over the course of millennia small changes in each offspring creates a different species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
It's also not a genetic line
Oct 6, 2021, 10:08 AM
|
|
It's more of a genetic web
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
A technical point, but we do not decide it's a new species.
Oct 6, 2021, 10:24 AM
[ in reply to It's not species A, birth to species B ] |
|
I think the inability to reproduce is the dividing line. Different species cannot reproduce with each other. Two breeds of dog are not two species. As I understand it, anyway.
Has it ever happened, for instance, that one breed of dog (or some animal) changed to the degree that it could reproduce with itself but not with any other dog, thus being a new animal? I do not know. But the question is bigger than even that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [98351]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65245
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I agree. Adaptation is something all things do themselves
Oct 6, 2021, 9:23 AM
[ in reply to I'm saying what is, that the two don't mean the same.*** ] |
|
HOWEVER, the ultimate arbiter of adaptation IS NATURAL SELECTION. Who lives and reproduces more because they wear mammoth skin coats, and who dies because they never thought to make a coat from a mammoth skin. The human adaptation is making clothes to keep warm. EVOLUTION, however, favors those humans SMART ENOUGH to make clothes, fire, etc. And it does this through natural selection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Sure, no problem with that. But the selection has to be
Oct 6, 2021, 9:46 AM
|
|
paired with random mutation. There is no proposal that the new need (for a longer beak, say) causes the mutation. Mutations randomly occur, the best ones surviving. The question raised by the OP (which unfortunately interchanged the terms adaptation and evolution) is whether that process explains what now exists. That is a really big question, because simply looking at giraffes or birds does not address the source and current form of what exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Lemme go with a more serious answer and save everyone time.
Oct 6, 2021, 8:58 AM
|
|
Those of you who are about to engage or have engaged in this thread to argue against the OP are literally debating people who think evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible but also believe Noah's Ark is scientifically and mathematically impossible.
Imagine someone walking up to you on the street and saying gravity isn't real but he has the power of telekinesis. Are you going to stop and debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
You're losing your edge. It took two responses for you to
Oct 6, 2021, 9:01 AM
|
|
go ad hominem. Out of practice, maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I still have gas left in the tank.
Oct 6, 2021, 9:03 AM
|
|
Here, you can set me straight if I'm off base:
Do you believe the story of Noah's Ark is true and factual? That it actually happened as described in the Bible?
A simple yes or no will do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
It might do for you, but not for the matter at hand. The OP
Oct 6, 2021, 9:17 AM
|
|
submitted a legitimate issue for discussion, a fun one because we already know people disagree. We are therefore free to propose answers regarding the subject he proposed, and to disagree.
You instead go straight to ad hominem or its 1st cousin, diversion. But that's you. We know it. We're not doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4068]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8184
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: It might do for you, but not for the matter at hand. The OP
Oct 6, 2021, 9:26 AM
|
|
Do you believe the story of Noah's ark is real and happened just like it was described in the bible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Don't deflect. Yes or no?
Oct 6, 2021, 9:33 AM
[ in reply to It might do for you, but not for the matter at hand. The OP ] |
|
You want to talk about scientific and mathematical impossibilities, yet I'm fairly certain you believe in Noah's Ark, which is also scientifically and mathematically impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I am not going to be deflected. Sorry. I do not mind
Oct 6, 2021, 9:37 AM
|
|
discussing Noah at all. Start another thread on it, I might engage. Fun discussion. But not as evidence for or against evolution. Two different matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Doesn't need another thread...
Oct 6, 2021, 9:43 AM
|
|
It's a relevant part of this discussion since you're addressing the idea of evolution as one that would completely exclude God and creation. Thus, I'm going to assume you support the text of the Bible. If I'm incorrect here, you can say so and I'll readjust my approach.
However, if my assumption is correct, that means you're claiming evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible while at the same time believing a story that is also scientifically and mathematically impossible. It punches holes in your argument. You also can't respond with, "God can find a way" as I can just apply the same dismissal to your statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
You are correct that that was a wrong assumption for
Oct 6, 2021, 9:53 AM
|
|
this discussion.
I might think that aliens visited us and deposited dna that then became all life. I might be absolutely wrong about that. That has no effect on the source and existence of life. Or any other material observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Okay, so...
Oct 6, 2021, 9:56 AM
|
|
I'm wrong to assume your argument is coming from Biblical beliefs and that you DON'T believe Noah's Ark happened? If so, I'll retract that argument.
Again, I ask... isn't it possible creation and evolution could walk hand-in-hand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Correct, unstated, yes. I didn't realize you had asked that
Oct 6, 2021, 10:44 AM
|
|
last one before. I missed it. Yes, could happen. Doesn't seem to be the case (I'm speaking of Evolution (Big E) as explanation for existence of life). I would say seems impossible to have been the case. Even Koonin says it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25235]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43330
Joined: 7/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4068]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8184
Joined: 12/9/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [138968]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64114
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Consciousness, intent, and desire aren't prerequisites for
Oct 6, 2021, 9:01 AM
|
|
natural selection. Plants certainly don't think, so how did cacti develop thorns?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26712]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20789
Joined: 9/2/02
|
How much time is required for DJ to “evolve” into
Oct 6, 2021, 9:46 AM
|
|
An accurate passer of the football ?
We got 9 days to work with
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5738]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12222
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Well, seems that we need more particiaption here
Oct 6, 2021, 10:09 AM
|
|
I admit the vastness of the universe and time is something no human can appreciate or really understand.
We think the universe is ~13B years old and the earth ~4B. A lot can happen in a few billion years.
An interesting comment I heard one time is "if it is possible to happen, then it has happened given the vastness of the universe, the number of galaxies, stars, planets, etc." That is quite a statement.
But, I can't find a way to believe humans started from a lightning bolt and a few chemicals. If you believe this, if we could do the math, an equivalent idea would be believing, given nearly an infinity amount of time, a person can buy the winning Powerball ticket one millions times in a row. Think about it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
That's an interesting statement. I like it.
Oct 6, 2021, 10:11 AM
|
|
Also, you need to retake your statistics class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
He might be close to right. Might have missed this above,
Oct 6, 2021, 10:50 AM
|
|
but the chance of life naturally occurring by random chance is 1/X, X being a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe. That's a lot, btw. That is a generally accepted, peer reviewed number, accepted by biologists (atheists and theist alike).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47070]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30912
Joined: 8/11/15
|
You are correct. 1 out of a huge number. But still possible***
Oct 6, 2021, 10:51 AM
|
|
based on observable facts and data
Message was edited by: FBCoachSC®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38727
Joined: 11/30/98
|
We also...
Oct 6, 2021, 2:22 PM
[ in reply to He might be close to right. Might have missed this above, ] |
|
I mean, I guess technically--haven't encountered life on other planets. Not like ours. And the universe is unfathomably vast. Your probability is slim, but the pool is very, very large. Perhaps we are that one little unlikely probability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5738]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12222
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: We also...
Oct 6, 2021, 3:51 PM
|
|
Agree. We could be the biggest winners ever in the 13 billion-year old universe lotto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
It is an interesting situation. Consider this:
Oct 6, 2021, 4:45 PM
|
|
It is generally accepted that the odds are staggeringly against it happening even once. The 'vastness of the universe' and the number of stars, etc, do not increase the odds: the calculations take that into account. The odds are beyond comprehension.
Every new landing on Mars nevertheless brings breathless exclamations of "evidence for life". Of course its an either or question, there is or there isn't. Or was or wasn't. So, given the odds, if life is found there, and right next door, there are some incredible questions to consider, such as: If the odds against are so great, and it happns twice, right here, clearly a mechanism is at work. And there starts the origin debate all over again.
Or, if the evidence accumulates that the earth is unique ... the origin debate starts all over again.
It is a thing some people don't like to face, that what one thinks about that question requires a predetermined starting point. Gasp. Surely not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 74
| visibility 11
|
|
|
50
