Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Denis Noble (Oxford and Royal Society biologist): “The biggest questions in science today are about how life got going and the origin of the genetic code. How do living things ‘know’ how to evolve? What do cells know that we don’t? Is the genetic code the result of chance as some claim for 100 years – or is science pointing us to currently unknown processes? The answers will be as profound as Einstein’s E=mc2.”
George Church (Harvard geneticist): “Origin of life is the hardest question in science. It’s mind-boggling you can have such complex structures that make copies of themselves. But it’s very hard to do that with machines we’ve built. We are engineers but we’re rather poor ones compared to the pseudo engineering that is biological evolution.”
What exactly is so revolutionary about what these two people said? Just one more question; when did these two people make these statements? And if I may sneak in another question; what is the relevance of what they said?
So I followed the link. Several statements struck me. Here's two.
Quote:
The odds of this “big bang” producing anything at all is astronomically unlikely. This explosion/expansion of the Big Bang had to occur with mind-boggling precision in order for galaxies to form, let alone life…
If the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin.
— Robert Lanza
Please explain to us mere mortals how exactly Robert Lanza arrived at this conclusion?
Quote:
Former astrophysicist and head of mathematics at Wales University, Dr. Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred Hoyle, describe the likelihood of human evolution to be as mathematically plausible as:
"...a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind a complete and flyable Boeing 747...
That's known as Hoyle's Fallacy.
Quote:
Hoyle's fallacy, also known as the junkyard tornado, describes a hypothetical tornado that passes through a hypothetical junkyard resulting in chaos. Proponents of Intelligent Design erroneously assume that because the ensuing chaos does not produce some sort of complex, synthesized device (for example, a Boeing 747), that various processes of evolution, abiogenesis or other origin-of-life theories are equally unlikely.
Did you notice the 'Proponents of Intelligent Design' in there?
Actually, I hadn't considered panspermia. Apparently the building blocks can and do form in space under the influence of radiation. I had read on the process. But in my defence, it's still not supernatural.
Harry: "abiogenesis must be most probable unless you can provide a third option. So around 100% [confidence] until new evidence is provided"
"Abiogenesis is an ordinary claim with ordinary evidence (it is called chemistry)."
You're just demonstrating your ignorance. There is no evidence. It's just a theory.
People who know more about it than you...
Denis Noble (Oxford and Royal Society biologist): “The biggest questions in science today are about how life got going and the origin of the genetic code. How do living things ‘know’ how to evolve? What do cells know that we don’t? Is the genetic code the result of chance as some claim for 100 years – or is science pointing us to currently unknown processes? The answers will be as profound as Einstein’s E=mc2.”
George Church (Harvard geneticist): “Origin of life is the hardest question in science. It’s mind-boggling you can have such complex structures that make copies of themselves. But it’s very hard to do that with machines we’ve built. We are engineers but we’re rather poor ones compared to the pseudo engineering that is biological evolution.”
It is interesting that you quoted two individuals who disagree with creationism and don’t believe in it. Shouldn’t you be cherry picking from the choir?
Harry: "abiogenesis must be most probable unless you can provide a third option. So around 100% [confidence] until new evidence is provided"
"Abiogenesis is an ordinary claim with ordinary evidence (it is called chemistry)."
You're just demonstrating your ignorance.
You are just demonstrating your dishonesty. Chemistry DOES exist. Until you can provide ANY evidence for how your improbable god did it, or a third option, you have NOTHING.
It is YOU who has provided ZERO evidence for your god (and plenty of evidence proving it can NOT exist, or is at least improbable (point 6)).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
People who know more about it than you...
Denis Noble (Oxford and Royal Society biologist): “The biggest questions in science today are about how life got going and the origin of the genetic code. How do living things ‘know’ how to evolve? What do cells know that we don’t? Is the genetic code the result of chance as some claim for 100 years – or is science pointing us to currently unknown processes? The answers will be as profound as Einstein’s E=mc2.”
George Church (Harvard geneticist): “Origin of life is the hardest question in science. It’s mind-boggling you can have such complex structures that make copies of themselves. But it’s very hard to do that with machines we’ve built. We are engineers but we’re rather poor ones compared to the pseudo engineering that is biological evolution.”
Can you for once argue for yourself instead of the usual evasion with creationist tactic of cherry picked argument from authority?
People who know more about it than both of us. About 60 of them.
Can somebody explain to me why we have had a thread go one for over 1300 posts talking about evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis (whatever that is), Intelligent Design (whatever that is), panspermia (really, in the R&S forum?), etc., when the title of the thread is "Comparing Atheism and Christianity" and there has been virtually no mention of Jesus Christ in the entire thread? Most of this looks like a veiled disagreement over whether the book of Genesis is to be read literally or allegorically.
Can somebody explain to me why we have had a thread go one for over 1300 posts talking about evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis (whatever that is), Intelligent Design (whatever that is), panspermia (really, in the R&S forum?), etc., when the title of the thread is "Comparing Atheism and Christianity" and there has been virtually no mention of Jesus Christ in the entire thread? Most of this looks like a veiled disagreement over whether the book of Genesis is to be read literally or allegorically.
My posts are looking to Jesus Christ. I rarely write his name because the world and especially Christianity has turned his name into a curse. And at the core of their twisted teachings, that is what they do. My anger on this is not with the people, but the religious leaders who have perpetrated the lie upon the people. As they use the old bait and switch to seek to obtain power and control over people and their minds, to accumulate much wealth and make a name for themselves. Placing themselves as a god, between God, the Life He shares and the people. While outwardly they claim to be praising God. Just as the serpent did in his beguiling lie.
It is interesting that you quoted two individuals who disagree with creationism and don’t believe in it. Shouldn’t you be cherry picking from the choir?
What I find bizarre about her post is the statement: "You're just demonstrating your ignorance. There is no evidence. It's just a theory. People who know more about it than you..." ... As if she has much of a knowledge base in science regarding this.
Let's see -- I have a choice between the overall body of science or IWMNA's beliefs in religion. No contest there.
Can somebody explain to me why we have had a thread go one for over 1300 posts talking about evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis (whatever that is), Intelligent Design (whatever that is), panspermia (really, in the R&S forum?), etc., when the title of the thread is "Comparing Atheism and Christianity" and there has been virtually no mention of Jesus Christ in the entire thread? Most of this looks like a veiled disagreement over whether the book of Genesis is to be read literally or allegorically.
It is the usual attack on what we do know (or have evidence for) by a theist who wants to pretend their improbable assertions without evidence are more valid. I have suggested we take the scnce to the relevant section, but as usual this offer has not been accepted.
I would be very happy if IWas actually made an argument for their religion, it would make a change from the usual attack and run tactic they have used to this point in time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nce to the relevant section, but as usual this offer has not been accepted.