NationStates Jolt Archive

Battle of teaching evolution sharpens..... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050314/ts_washpost/a32444_2005mar13)

I know that this will most likely cause a stir. However, this sort of thing pisses me off. Here is how I propose that we do to make everyone happy.
First, teach science in science class IE: things that can be proven by the scientific method. Second, begin teaching classes on world religions. Creationism can be put into a class on christianity. All the various world religions can be taught in one class. I would actually enjoy learning of all the various beliefs. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

I know that this will most likely cause a stir. However, this sort of thing pisses me off. Here is how I propose that we do to make everyone happy.
First, teach science in science class IE: things that can be proven by the scientific method. Second, begin teaching classes on world religions. Creationism can be put into a class on christianity. All the various world religions can be taught in one class. I would actually enjoy learning of all the various beliefs. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

This is how it's done where I live. Religion is in religion class. Science in science class. It's really not that hard.

This is how it's done where I live. Religion is in religion class. Science in science class. It's really not that hard.

It working out well doing that there Fass? What all do they teach in the religion class?

It's like what Lawrence Krauss says, who is one of the leading opponents to creationism being taught as science. The creationists want creation theory to be included in the science syllabus by saying that 'scientists are continuing to critically examine evolutionary theory' but in reality it should be that scientists are continuing to critically examine everything. If you had to put forward every unorthodox, poorly supported, view on every subject you'd never teach any science at all. It is better if these things are taught separately.

It working out well doing that there Fass? What all do they teach in the religion class?
Religion?

It working out well doing that there Fass? What all do they teach in the religion class?

Religions. It basically starts with the basic, nature religions and basic differences between religions and religious ideas, then there is usually a look into ancient religions (such as Greek/Roman mythology, the Egyptians and the like), then it goes on to cover larger, current ones (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism et cetera), after which they usually let the students learn about other, less-known religions that they themselves find interesting.

This pattern is pretty much repeated during the different age groups, always delving deeper and into more detail.

No religion is to be put before the other, and it is always pointed out that the different religious texts are not to be considered as historical sources, but books of mythology.

Religions. It basically starts with the basic, nature religions and basic differences between religions and religious ideas, then there is usually a look into ancient religions (such as Greek/Roman mythology, the Egyptians and the like), then it goes on to cover larger, current ones (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism et cetera), after which they usually let the students learn about other, less-known religions that they themselves find interesting.

This pattern is pretty much repeated during the different age groups, always delving deeper and into more detail.

No religion is to be put before the other, and it is always pointed out that the different religious texts are not to be considered as historical sources, but books of mythology.

This is also pretty much how it was done at my school, back in England... although our syllabus was heavier on Christianity... but that COULD have been because it was a basically christian all-boys school...

Religions. It basically starts with the basic, nature religions and basic differences between religions and religious ideas, then there is usually a look into ancient religions (such as Greek/Roman mythology, the Egyptians and the like), then it goes on to cover larger, current ones (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism et cetera), after which they usually let the students learn about other, less-known religions that they themselves find interesting.

This pattern is pretty much repeated during the different age groups, always delving deeper and into more detail.

No religion is to be put before the other, and it is always pointed out that the different religious texts are not to be considered as historical sources, but books of mythology.
Lucky!
A fairly balanced class on religions, or so it seems by your description. I envy you.

Battle of teaching evolution sharpens..... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050314/ts_washpost/a32444_2005mar13)

I know that this will most likely cause a stir. However, this sort of thing pisses me off. Here is how I propose that we do to make everyone happy.
First, teach science in science class IE: things that can be proven by the scientific method. Second, begin teaching classes on world religions. Creationism can be put into a class on christianity. All the various world religions can be taught in one class. I would actually enjoy learning of all the various beliefs. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

Thats how it was done when I went to school in the US not that long ago. Well, it wasnt a class specifically for religion, it was part of 9th or 10th grade social studies (dont remember which).

Battle of teaching evolution sharpens..... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050314/ts_washpost/a32444_2005mar13)

I know that this will most likely cause a stir. However, this sort of thing pisses me off. Here is how I propose that we do to make everyone happy.
First, teach science in science class IE: things that can be proven by the scientific method. Second, begin teaching classes on world religions. Creationism can be put into a class on christianity. All the various world religions can be taught in one class. I would actually enjoy learning of all the various beliefs. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

It won't make the Creationists happy. They know that they are right, that the Bible is inerrant (or rather, that their interpretation of their version of the Bible is inerrant). Anything which even tries to suggest otherwise is the Work of Satan, or Put Here To Test Our Faith, and so on. These are the sort of people who want no laws but the Ten Commandments; no creed but (their version of) Christianity. In short, they are not right in the head. There is really very little point in trying to accommodate them, or find a compromise: they won't be happy with anything less than everything going their way -- whereupon they can start persecuting each other for subtle differences in interpretation of obscure Biblical passages while they try to immanentize the eschaton.

When did we start thinking that it's a good idea to consult obviously deranged individuals -- people who think that stories involving magic apples and talking snakes are true, people who are just next door on the dingbat spectrum to geocentricists and flat earthers -- as to what we teach in schools? We should stop pissing about and teach science, and if some crazy people don't like it -- tough. They won't like anything short of total control, and total public surrender to their superstitions, in any case. Maybe if we stopped pandering to their delusions, some of them might stop and say to themselves, "actually, this whole talking snake thing -- it sounds kind of silly when you say it out loud."

It won't make the Creationists happy. They know that they are right, that the Bible is inerrant (or rather, that their interpretation of their version of the Bible is inerrant). Anything which even tries to suggest otherwise is the Work of Satan, or Put Here To Test Our Faith, and so on. These are the sort of people who want no laws but the Ten Commandments; no creed but (their version of) Christianity. In short, they are not right in the head. There is really very little point in trying to accommodate them, or find a compromise: they won't be happy with anything less than everything going their way -- whereupon they can start persecuting each other for subtle differences in interpretation of obscure Biblical passages while they try to immanentize the eschaton.
Err, wow. Could you make any more broad generalizations?

You know, not all creationists want to establish Christianity as a state religion. Neither do they all want to destroy everyone who doesn't believe what they do.

Unless that post was humour that I managed to miss?

Err, wow. Could you make any more broad generalizations?

You know, not all creationists want to establish Christianity as a state religion. Neither do they all want to destroy everyone who doesn't believe what they do.

Unless that post was humour that I managed to miss?

Nope, I meant it. OK, I accept that not all Creationists are as far-out as I portrayed them -- but they are part of a journey towards that mentality. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "creationist": whether it's someone who thinks that there's a God and he created stuff and maybe gave evolution a nudge here and there, or whether it's someone who thinks that Genesis is the final word on the subject (I'm struggling to see how someone could fit somewhere between these points of view). The first type shouldn't have a problem with evolution being taught in schools, and therefore falls outside the field of my previous post. The second type is a crazy person, and it's really not a good idea to pander to people suffering from delusions. It's not a good idea to let them influence your school curriculum, or run your government or military, either.

And I admit that not all Creationists are fundamentalist Christians: there are some equally crazy Muslims and Jews, too.

"Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio have approved new rules allowing that."

stupid Ohio

"Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio have approved new rules allowing that."

stupid Ohio
I grew up in Ohio, so I'm not hugely surprised by this. Y'know, I used to laugh at the Soviets because of Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism). Now I have a much harder time managing even a chuckle... :headbang:

Battle of teaching evolution sharpens..... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050314/ts_washpost/a32444_2005mar13)

I know that this will most likely cause a stir. However, this sort of thing pisses me off. Here is how I propose that we do to make everyone happy.
First, teach science in science class IE: things that can be proven by the scientific method. Second, begin teaching classes on world religions. Creationism can be put into a class on christianity. All the various world religions can be taught in one class. I would actually enjoy learning of all the various beliefs. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

Well, there's a problem with that: a lot of what modern science deals with are purely unobservable, and in the strictest sense nonexistent, entities.

Take for example the concept of "center of gravity". It's a very useful term, as it allows you to calculate the distance, and therefore the gravitational attraction, between two objects. Yet if you cut open a planet, there will never be a point clearly labeled "center of gravity." Technically speaking, it doesn't exist. But it is a useful term that helps us organize sets of observable data into coherent theories. Same goes for a lot of other common phrases in common scientific use: gene, allele, quark, black hole, etc.

No, the real problem is two (or perhaps three)fold. The first problem is that these people are confusing science with philosophy, specifically metaphysics. Well, perhaps at this point "confusing" is a bad term, since they quite deliberately want to undermine science. To say that the world was created at a certain date is certainly a legitemate scientific, physical question, because if it is the case that the universe was created at such and such a time, it will quite clearly be evident in some aspects of the physical universe. To say, however, that the world was created at such and such a time by a creator is not a scientific question, because there is no way to observe, or more importantly test for such a phenomena: the world still exists whether it turns out there is or is not a creator that made it.

This leads to what is either the second point or the main subpoint of the above: not only is intelligent design a metaphysical posit, it's a bad metaphysical posit. If these people had bothered to even take a cursory glance at the history of theological thought, one person that would certainly have come to their attention would be a man by the name of David Hume. Basically, Hume made some pretty damning indictments of the older cosmological argument for the existence of God (such as Aquinas' first cause argument). Then he said in effect "No one has been stupid enough to present an argument for God like X, but theoretically you could. But I say it's stupid for good reason, because of reasons a through f." Hume effectively debunked X in 1776, the same year Ameerica revolted against the British. 70 or so years later, however, here comes a theologian by the name of Edward Paley. Paley's contribution to theology was to ignore Hume, ignore a through f, postulate X, and then slap himself on the back for defending Christianity. It would be really charitable of Paley to say that his argument was destroyed years before it was ever made. It would be fairly accurate to call Paley an idiot. But this, conveniently enough, is never mentioned by the people who still trot out Paley as a legitemate defense against evolution.

The third problem I have is that they then defend their position with these stupid democratic arguments. I say they're stupid in this case not because I'm anti-democratic, but because apparently I'm smart enough to know when and where democracy should come into play. The science class is not one of them.

The reason behind this is not simple: popular sovereignty has no bearing on what science is really about: truth. If you were to take a poll in which 90% of the respondents said they did not believe in attraction at a distance, does that suddenly mean that gravity stops working and we all start floating three inches off of the ground? Of course not, because gravity is not the kind of thing that you can determine with a vote. But if you talk about evolution, well then suddenly you're likely to get pegged as being anti-(little d) democratic, because by golly, the majority of the people in this county don't believe in evolution, never mind that evolution is on the same playing field as gravity as far as scientific legitemacy is concerned.

I was taught (and believe in) evolution at school. No one objected except one of the preists. He fought very hard to try and make the school only teach creationism in science lessons, but fewer people paid attention to him after it came to light that for some thirty something years he had been doing things with children. :gundge:

Ahhh.... I'm fed up with religious types. Read 3001: the Final Odyssey by arthur C. Clarke (4th in space odyssey series) and you'll see it's very likely that religions will be discredited.

I like Vulcans. they're more logical than humans.

I like Vulcans. they're more logical than humans.

However, they are also somewhat more fictional, which is quite detrimental to them as a race.

I think religion and evolution can coexist quite peacefully... I'm Catholic, sorta (and a big sorta), but I don't think science and my religion contradict each other at all.

I think religion and evolution can coexist quite peacefully... I'm Catholic, sorta (and a big sorta), but I don't think science and my religion contradict each other at all.

Thats because you dont think

I think religion and evolution can coexist quite peacefully... I'm Catholic, sorta (and a big sorta), but I don't think science and my religion contradict each other at all.

Well, as long as you don't insist that Genesis is literally true, that sounds reasonable to me, and you're not the sort of person being complained about here :).

Thats because you dont think
I assume that you were trying to insult me?

Well, as long as you don't insist that Genesis is literally true, that sounds reasonable to me, and you're not the sort of person being complained about here :).
~giggles~

I may be Catholic, but I'm not stupid ;)

I assume that you were trying to insult me?
Just ignore him. That's obvious flamebaiting.

Battle of teaching evolution sharpens..... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050314/ts_washpost/a32444_2005mar13)

I know that this will most likely cause a stir. However, this sort of thing pisses me off. Here is how I propose that we do to make everyone happy.
First, teach science in science class IE: things that can be proven by the scientific method. Second, begin teaching classes on world religions. Creationism can be put into a class on christianity. All the various world religions can be taught in one class. I would actually enjoy learning of all the various beliefs. Anyhow, just my thoughts.

SO evolution would be taught in secular humanism.

Only problem is where do you put intelligent design? I.d. simply says "we interpret the facts this way, make your own worldview conclusions"

It won't make the Creationists happy. ... it sounds kind of silly when you say it out loud."

(Sorry I am posting as I read through the thread)

Hey man, that was some good flaming. Next time back your accusations with facts. (oh crap, I just asked Grave_n_idle and Neo to slaughter me, oh well)

As I was taught, the six "days" of creation are actually "six yohms". Or in original English-translated-Jeewish: "YHM" (I was taught this last year so forgive me if I am waaay off). So anyhow, the "yohm" can mean anything from a 24-hour day to a thousand years.

Also, if the Christian God is real, then Genesis can be literal. The Christian God has complete power to do anything and everything he wants however he frakking wants to. So as I see it, if YHWH is real, he could have created everything in an actual 24-hours in six days.

SO evolution would be taught in secular humanism.
Well, it's a scientific theory with a basis in evidence, so I'd assume it would be taught in biology. At least, I'd hope so, since modern biology hinges on it in the same way that chemistry hinges on atomic theory.

Only problem is where do you put intelligent design? I.d. simply says "we interpret the facts this way, make your own worldview conclusions"
ID is really, really thinly masked creationism, and it's a revision shaped by a lawyer of all people, ol' John Calvert, if memory serves.

ID is really, really thinly masked creationism, and it's a revision shaped by a lawyer of all people, ol' John Calvert, if memory serves.

I have yet to see someone preach ID in my face and bring a worldview into their preaching unless you consider interpret the world for yourself and know what you believe a world view.

My comment on where evolution would be taught was to..

Mt-Tau's First, teach science in science class IE: things that can be proven by the scientific method. Second, begin teaching classes on world religions. Creationism can be put into a class on christianity. All the various world religions can be taught in one class.

As creationism corresponds with christianity, evolution corresponds with secular humanism. (I came to that conclusion mostly by myself)

I have yet to see someone preach ID in my face and bring a worldview into their preaching...
Heh. I have, on a lot of occasions.

Intelligent design also simply has a lot of problems from a scientific standpoint. It's not predicated on proving intelligent design; it's predicated on attacking evolution and assuming itself to be the only possible alternative. Consequently, it is absolutely useless for predictive power.

EDIT #1:
Example: With evolutionary theory, you can predict that if you have two bacteria and a zebra, the 16s rRNA sequences will be more closely related between both bacteria than with either bacterium and the zebra. You could also make the same prediction for a number of highly conserved bits of cellular machinery like DNA-dependent RNA polymerase. You'd be right, too, because that's the way it actually works. With ID, you wouldn't be able to justify that prediction, because the concept of evolutionary distance gets junked.

EDIT #2:
Example: One of the ways to spot a horizontally transferred gene is by a substantive difference in its G-C content against the average G-C content of the genome. This tells you that you should be looking for a donor who was the original source of the transferred material... in an evolutionary sense, and you can use evolutionary algorithms to find compatible candidates for that gene by virtue of the sequence of its product, its functional bits, etc. From an intelligent design standpoint, none of these prediction cannot be justified, as the difference in G-C content could be as much a matter of "design" as a matter of HGT, and even if the content issue were granted, the algorithms would be meaningless.

Example: With evolutionary theory, you can predict that if you have two bacteria and a zebra, the 16s rRNA sequences will be more closely related between both bacteria than with either bacterium and the zebra. You could also make the same prediction for a number of highly conserved bits of cellular machinery like DNA-dependent RNA polymerase. You'd be right, too, because that's the way it actually works. With ID, you wouldn't be able to justify that prediction, because the concept of evolutionary distance gets junked.

As far as I knew, it just predicts we become more specific in our genetic material, do not gain genetic information, and actually lose it as we continue procreating.

As far as I knew, it just predicts we become more specific in our genetic material, do not gain genetic information, and actually lose it as we continue procreating.
Which is also factually incorrect. Completely erroneous. I don't know how any ID "scientist" can say it with a straight face. Specific example: I remember a Science paper where they did a motility knockout in a bacterium and they found the cell had restored its motility through the development of a completely new activity. It didn't just revert the knockout that had killed its motility... it circumvented it entirely with a new enzymatic process! Nifty paper.

EDIT: Just to be explicit, by the above "mutation only destroys genetic information" line of reasoning common in ID, the above example should be impossible.

So then added genetic information, right?

So then added genetic information, right?
Yeah.

I couldn't agree more with the original posters comments on having scientifically based things in science class. That is why evolution has no place there. Show me a single of the billions upon billions of inbetween species which evolution relies upon. I can not be shown a single one. Evolution requires an extreme gambler to believe in. In fact. the odds of a single DNA molecule randomly forming, according to noble prize winning scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, is 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, to 1. Consider the hundreds of thousands of DNA molecules that evolutionists claim to have all randomly formed next to each other and you have an incredibly unlikely event. Last time I looked, science was based on facts, not "what if this nearly impossible thing happened".

As far as I knew, it just predicts we become more specific in our genetic material, do not gain genetic information, and actually lose it as we continue procreating.


Then you should learn more about evolution...gene duplication, chromosomal duplication and whole genome duplication is fairly common in nature, as wellas other ways to gain genetic information. Many plants for example have evolved in this way for example.

That genetic information can not be gained is (and I am sorry to be having to use such as drastic word, but somtimes you have) ID propaganda and lies, which is wrong and they propably knows it to.

I couldn't agree more with the original posters comments on having scientifically based things in science class. That is why evolution has no place there. Show me a single of the billions upon billions of inbetween species which evolution relies upon. I can not be shown a single one. Evolution requires an extreme gambler to believe in. In fact. the odds of a single DNA molecule randomly forming, according to noble prize winning scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, is 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, to 1. Consider the hundreds of thousands of DNA molecules that evolutionists claim to have all randomly formed next to each other and you have an incredibly unlikely event. Last time I looked, science was based on facts, not "what if this nearly impossible thing happened".

I suggest you take a look at dog breeding if you want to be able to see tons of intermediate evolutionary steps meticulously documented.

As for why there are missing steps - if an adaptation gives a significant competeitive advatage to one branch of a species over another, its likely that the new will completely outcompete the old, and the old one will become extinct. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but extinction seems to actually be very common in nature.

As for Fred Hoyle, well, he was a birlliant scientist in some respects, but also a bit of a nutcase, so he's not really the best person to quote for these things. The fact of the matter is that no respectable scientist believes dna formed completely at random, but rather that it was built up to over time. The original life forms were probably much simpler and possibly based only on RNA. By that hypothesis, DNA would only have been generated later.

I couldn't agree more with the original posters comments on having scientifically based things in science class. That is why evolution has no place there. Show me a single of the billions upon billions of inbetween species which evolution relies upon. I can not be shown a single one. Evolution requires an extreme gambler to believe in. In fact. the odds of a single DNA molecule randomly forming, according to noble prize winning scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, is 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, to 1. Consider the hundreds of thousands of DNA molecules that evolutionists claim to have all randomly formed next to each other and you have an incredibly unlikely event. Last time I looked, science was based on facts, not "what if this nearly impossible thing happened".

Evolution is not the theory of how life started on Earth, it's the theory of what happens after that. And no evolutionist claims what you have said, perhaps time to read somethings except books from creationist?

Btw, couldn't find anyone named Fred Hoyle as winne of the Nobelprize. Time to check your references? And how did he come up with this number?

I vastly disagree, Evolution is very well proven. Creationist just can't accept it. There is very good evidence that there is one common ancestor of all lifeforms. There is pretty good paleontological evidence despite incomplete fossil record. There is NO evidence for a global flood whatsoever, and there is NO evidence either that the world was just 6,000 years old.
On the unlikelyness for the appearance on humans, i agree. It was a *big* coincidence, although not as big as you claim. And, where's the problem?

Furthermore I have to add that this Creationism debate is highly counter-productive for Christianity. With their claim that Evolution was nonsense, they divide science into 'good science' (which is conform with their beliefs) and 'bad science' (which is not). This, IMHO, is very unfair towards scientists since it makes problematic for them to be Christians.

blah blah blah

Evolution, as we currently know of it, is a change in gene frequencies over a ridiculous amount of time, with long periods of a successful mutation reigning supreme. Now, where something happens environmentally to cause that dominant trait to become a hindrance compared to a more passive trait, we usually see the dying out of the dominant trait and the reproduction of the now-more-successful formerly passive trait. As you can imagine, when something changes environmentally, the actual physical "evolution" occurs very rapidly, but beneath the surface, it is just which alelles were active or passive at the time.

Oh, and Dioxiribonucleic acid is just that, a nucleic acid. It is a micture of chemicals that replicate. These chemicals perform different functions based on their environment and their position. All we are are vessels to pass along this genetic information as it replicates and mutates. Very fascinating, really.

Oh, and I would like to see anyone come up with a more plausable explanation of why we are here and our origins. I don't think that it can be done without a tremendous suspension of disbelief.

While we're on the topic of Intelligent Design, I'd like to point out that the central argument for ID is a textbook example of a well established logical fallacy - argument from lack of imagination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack_of_imagination).

I generally don't take a theory very seriously when its core argument is an established logical fallacy. But, that's just me :rolleyes:

Evolution is not the theory of how life started on Earth, it's the theory of what happens after that. And no evolutionist claims what you have said, perhaps time to read somethings except books from creationist?

Btw, couldn't find anyone named Fred Hoyle as winne of the Nobelprize. Time to check your references? And how did he come up with this number?

urgh,

please DON'T start referring to scientists or biologists as evolutionists. That's a creationist favourite to make scientists sound like a bunch of religious zealots as well.

urgh,

please DON'T start referring to scientists or biologists as evolutionists. That's a creationist favourite to make scientists sound like a bunch of religious zealots as well.

Just used the term he used withou thinking about it. It's morning where I am and I haven't drunk any coffe yet. Please forgive me? :fluffle:

Evolution is not the theory of how life started on Earth, it's the theory of what happens after that. And no evolutionist claims what you have said, perhaps time to read somethings except books from creationist?

Btw, couldn't find anyone named Fred Hoyle as winne of the Nobelprize. Time to check your references? And how did he come up with this number?

I'm not sure if Hoyle ever did win the Nobel prize, but he was a prominent and respected Astrophysicist who wrote some very important papers, and was undeniably brilliant.

He was also a bit of a nut though, and believed that life didn't evolve on earth but was brought here on comets. He also believed that viruses were continuing to arrive on earth causing outbreaks of flu etc. Most scientists disagree.

Evolution is not the theory of how life started on Earth, it's the theory of what happens after that. And no evolutionist claims what you have said, perhaps time to read somethings except books from creationist?

Btw, couldn't find anyone named Fred Hoyle as winne of the Nobelprize. Time to check your references? And how did he come up with this number?

Time to use Google? http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

Incidentally, somebody mentioned looking at dog breeding as proof of evolution. Could somebody point me out a reference to the first dog with half-paws, half-flippers? Or was there something else after fish and before dog? I'd like to believe in evolution, really, but from everything I've seen it's as credible as creation.

I suggest you take a look at dog breeding if you want to be able to see tons of intermediate evolutionary steps meticulously documented.

As for why there are missing steps - if an adaptation gives a significant competeitive advatage to one branch of a species over another, its likely that the new will completely outcompete the old, and the old one will become extinct. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but extinction seems to actually be very common in nature.

While dog breeding can produce new species, they are still within the same kind. They are still dogs. No new genetic information is being produced. This is called micro-evolution. I should clarify, I have an issue with macro-evolution not micro.

While your arguement may make sense for very small leaps, it doesn't make any sense for the jump from reptile to bird.

While dog breeding can produce new species, they are still within the same kind. They are still dogs. No new genetic information is being produced. This is called micro-evolution. I should clarify, I have an issue with macro-evolution not micro.

While your arguement may make sense for very small leaps, it doesn't make any sense for the jump from reptile to bird.

oh god one of YOU

take it to http://www.evcforum.net where there is plenty of evidence nicely laid out for you

Evolution is not the theory of how life started on Earth, it's the theory of what happens after that. And no evolutionist claims what you have said, perhaps time to read somethings except books from creationist?


You avoided the issue. You claim evolution is true, yet you can't give it anything to work with.

While dog breeding can produce new species, they are still within the same kind. They are still dogs. No new genetic information is being produced. This is called micro-evolution. I should clarify, I have an issue with macro-evolution not micro.

While your arguement may make sense for very small leaps, it doesn't make any sense for the jump from reptile to bird.
Well, I would argue that the difference between a dachshund and a golden retriever is pretty significant, and that evolution has taken place just in the very small amount of time humans have been breeding dogs. There are tons of intermediate steps present in the fossil record. Actually, to answer your specific question, I believe archaeopteryx (which we have numerous fossils of) represents a clear intermediate step between reptiles and birds.

There are gaps in the evolutionary record of course, but the reason for that is obvious - animals go extinct, and except in the rare cases where fossils are produced, leave no evidence after a few thousand years.

Incidentally, somebody mentioned looking at dog breeding as proof of evolution. Could somebody point me out a reference to the first dog with half-paws, half-flippers? Or was there something else after fish and before dog? I'd like to believe in evolution, really, but from everything I've seen it's as credible as creation.

Oh MY GOD! That's because you are completely ignorant of evolutionary theory. You assume that evolution is a straight line, or that at least there is a direct line of species from "fish" to "dogs"?

Pull up a chair, old chap. There are these things called COMMON ANCESTORS. I'll give you a metaphor as an example. What you just said was, in effect, "Why isn't there anybody linking these two cousins together until we look WAY BACK in history? Why didn't the first cousin directly produce the next cousin?"

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? Now, as evolutionary theory states, the first creatures probably came on lad at LEAST a billion years ago, most likely more than that. So, I think there are a lot of species -type aunts and uncles and mothers and fathers and grand-grand-whathaveyou seperating a salmon from a doberman.

If you actually think that any credible person who believes in evolution thinks that things evolved linearly, please go back to middle school and leave the big boys alone.

While your arguement may make sense for very small leaps, it doesn't make any sense for the jump from reptile to bird.

I'm sure you have heard about Archaeopterx. But have you heard about Microraptor, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx and Rahonavis? Those were feathrered Dinosaurs that obviously proof that birds evolved from Dinosaurs. :p

Slightly off topic, it turns out Fred Hoyle didn't get a nobel prize, but probably deserved to. A colleague got the prize for a paper they coauthored, and Hoyle was most likely overlooked for political reasons, and well, because he was seen as a bit of a nutcase.

link (http://www.goodbyemag.com/jul01/hoyle.html)

oh god one of YOU
Very intersting rebuttal.... ;)

take it to http://www.evcforum.net where there is plenty of evidence nicely laid out for you

Very nice site recommendation, but after 2 minutes (no that is not very long, but hey I'm tired/lazy right now :) ) I couldn't find anything to disprove my point, and the evolutionist points were proved wrong (as well as many of the creationist points I should add). Here is a site link. Yes, it isn't the greatest creationist site of all time. In fact it is kind of (replace kind of with very) cheesy at times but if you can go through and tear apart the arguements in the genetics, mutations, probabilities, and thermodynamics sections I'll cave. Until then I'm going to go sleep....

Good Night

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Thermodynamics, eh? Creationists always bring the argument that the 2. law of thermodynamics wouldn't allow the existence of lifeforms. That 2. law says "In a closed system, entropy will only increase."

Now, lifeforms are no way closed systems - they are open systems that decrease their own entropy by increasing the entropy of their surrounding. The only real closed system - in fact - is the whole universe itself.
But anyways, Creationists enjoy to leave out that phrase "in a closed system" for their argumentation. That's pretty idiotic, if you ask me. :p

Incidentally, somebody mentioned looking at dog breeding as proof of evolution. Could somebody point me out a reference to the first dog with half-paws, half-flippers? Or was there something else after fish and before dog? I'd like to believe in evolution, really, but from everything I've seen it's as credible as creation.

Ouch. (note, i missed out this post at first, forgive me ^_^)
To your information, there was *a lot* of evolution at work between fish and dogs. I'm in good mood today so i will briefly sum it up all here:

1. The transition from fish to amphibian (see Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) - occured in the late Devonian
2. The transition from amphibian to reptile (see Seymouria)
- occured in the late Carboniferous
3. The transition from reptile to mammal (too many species to list here, transition VERY WELL recorded. I will mention Probainognathus here since it shows the transition between reptile and mammalian jaws.)
- occured during Permian to Triassic
4. Transition from primitive mammals to proper Carnivores - occured during early Tertiary (after Dinosaurs were extinct :p)

I hope you like it ;)

Thermodynamics, eh? Creationists always bring the argument that the 2. law of thermodynamics wouldn't allow the existence of lifeforms. That 2. law says "In a closed system, entropy will only increase."

Now, lifeforms are no way closed systems - they are open systems that decrease their own entropy by increasing the entropy of their surrounding. The only real closed system - in fact - is the whole universe itself.
But anyways, Creationists enjoy to leave out that phrase "in a closed system" for their argumentation. That's pretty idiotic, if you ask me.

Ok, I got to get off this computer now because I really need to sleep but technically I'm "getting a glass of water" right now. :D
Anyway, I'm applying the 2nd law to the entire universe. Of course cells are open systems. But within the universe entrophy will increase and cause the, I believe it is called the "heat death", in which everything will be turned into random heat and movement.

Very intersting rebuttal.... ;)



Very nice site recommendation, but after 2 minutes (no that is not very long, but hey I'm tired/lazy right now :) ) I couldn't find anything to disprove my point, and the evolutionist points were proved wrong (as well as many of the creationist points I should add). Here is a site link. Yes, it isn't the greatest creationist site of all time. In fact it is kind of (replace kind of with very) cheesy at times but if you can go through and tear apart the arguements in the genetics, mutations, probabilities, and thermodynamics sections I'll cave. Until then I'm going to go sleep....

Good Night

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Well, at a quick glance it would be a waste of time to go through every argument in those sections - my post would be so long no one would read it. But I'll gladly answer any specific points that you think are strongest or most convincing.

Ok, I got to get off this computer now because I really need to sleep but technically I'm "getting a glass of water" right now. :D
Anyway, I'm applying the 2nd law to the entire universe. Of course cells are open systems. But within the universe entrophy will increase and cause the, I believe it is called the "heat death", in which everything will be turned into random heat and movement.
Actually, the universe might not end in a heat death if there's sufficient energy and mass to cause it to collapse back into a point, but this is getting very far from evolution, and doesn't have much bearing on it anymore :).

I vastly disagree, Evolution is very well proven. Creationist just can't accept it. There is very good evidence that there is one common ancestor of all lifeforms. There is pretty good paleontological evidence despite incomplete fossil record. There is NO evidence for a global flood whatsoever, and there is NO evidence either that the world was just 6,000 years old.
On the unlikelyness for the appearance on humans, i agree. It was a *big* coincidence, although not as big as you claim. And, where's the problem?

Furthermore I have to add that this Creationism debate is highly counter-productive for Christianity. With their claim that Evolution was nonsense, they divide science into 'good science' (which is conform with their beliefs) and 'bad science' (which is not). This, IMHO, is very unfair towards scientists since it makes problematic for them to be Christians.

Hear hear. But it's not just Christians that take up the debate in favor of creationism. I'm sure there are plenty of Jews, Muslims, Agnostics and Atheists (not being racist here at all, but just pointing this out for arguments sake), who disregard Charles Darwin simply because they'd rather not try to understand it, or because its so ingrained in their psyche/beliefs.

I don't think it would land a flying kick to the nuts of any relgion if it was absolutely proved beyond all doubt that the Theory of Evolution = The Law of Evolution.

Since viruses, bateria, and every day cells in humans and animals naturally mutate, wouldn't it make sense that this could occur to the entire species over a much larger amount of time?

Hear hear. But it's not just Christians that take up the debate in favor of creationism. I'm sure there are plenty of Jews, Muslims, Agnostics and Atheists (not being racist here at all, but just pointing this out for arguments sake), who disregard Charles Darwin simply because they'd rather not try to understand it, or because its so ingrained in their psyche/beliefs.


Umm, a question, how could an atheist possibly be a Creationist?!? :confused:

That does not work.

Umm, a question, how could an atheist possibly be a Creationist?!? :confused:

That does not work.
somebody who believes there is no God could (theoretically) believe there once WAS a Creator, but that a) that Creator was not God, or b) the Creator was God but no longer exists.

Time to use Google? http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

i don't see where in that it mentions HOYLE winning a Nobel. it says he was helpful to a physicist who won the Nobel, but i can't see where it talks about HOYLE winning a Nobel.


Incidentally, somebody mentioned looking at dog breeding as proof of evolution. Could somebody point me out a reference to the first dog with half-paws, half-flippers? Or was there something else after fish and before dog? I'd like to believe in evolution, really, but from everything I've seen it's as credible as creation.
as several people have pointed out (but i will now reiterate for good measure), fish did not evolve into dogs. all animals share a common ancestor, but that does not mean things progressed in a line. look at your own family tree: you have cousins, probably, but unless you are from the deep South you were not the child of any of your cousins, nor were any of your cousins born from you. you share a common ancestor, but there was never a point where your cousins "turned into" you or you "turned into" your cousins. similarly, fish and dogs have a common ancestor, and there was never a point at which fish "turn into" dogs.

(Sorry I am posting as I read through the thread)

Hey man, that was some good flaming. Next time back your accusations with facts. (oh crap, I just asked Grave_n_idle and Neo to slaughter me, oh well)

Do you deny that a great many Creationists would love to see only their interpretation of one particular creation myth taught in schools, as absolute truth? That there are many schools where this junk is taught as an actual, valid theory, despite the total lack of evidence to support it, and in the teeth of huge masses of evidence to the contrary?

As I was taught, the six "days" of creation are actually "six yohms". Or in original English-translated-Jeewish: "YHM" (I was taught this last year so forgive me if I am waaay off). So anyhow, the "yohm" can mean anything from a 24-hour day to a thousand years.

A 6,000-year creation is, to all intents and purposes, just as daft as a 6-day creation. Sorry. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

Also, if the Christian God is real, then Genesis can be literal. The Christian God has complete power to do anything and everything he wants however he frakking wants to. So as I see it, if YHWH is real, he could have created everything in an actual 24-hours in six days.

Yeah, and if the Norse myths are real, then the universe is made from the bones of Ymir. What's your point? "If fairy story X is true, then fairy story X is true!" isn't much of a debating position.

I couldn't agree more with the original posters comments on having scientifically based things in science class. That is why evolution has no place there. Show me a single of the billions upon billions of inbetween species which evolution relies upon. I can not be shown a single one.
I take it you've never heard of ring species (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html), then. Otherwise, you'd know this plainly isn't true.

Evolution requires an extreme gambler to believe in. In fact. the odds of a single DNA molecule randomly forming, according to noble prize winning scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, is 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, to 1. Consider the hundreds of thousands of DNA molecules that evolutionists claim to have all randomly formed next to each other and you have an incredibly unlikely event. Last time I looked, science was based on facts, not "what if this nearly impossible thing happened".
As someone else said earlier, RNA was thought to be first, not DNA.... but, in any case, Fred Hoyle is an astronomer, not a biogeochemist. I don't know what Fred there was basing his calculations on, but was he taking things like the thermodynamics of reaction, initial conditions, possible catalysts, etc. etc. etc. into account? I doubt it. It seems like the same specious but impressive-sounding mathematical tripe Michael Behe spits out.

Here's one for ya, in the same vein. Another popular calculation dilettantes like to do in this vein is peptide formation, how long it would take and so on... but it turns out that carbonyl sulfide, a compound naturally coughed out by volcanoes, catalyzes peptide bond formation, drastically accelerating abiogenic peptide synthesis. The back of the envelope calculations never account for things like that... 'cause they never try to do so.

Incidentally, somebody mentioned looking at dog breeding as proof of evolution. Could somebody point me out a reference to the first dog with half-paws, half-flippers? Or was there something else after fish and before dog?
Out of curiosity, have you ever seen a mudskipper (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~thebobo/mud.htm)? Crazy little guys.

Yeah, and if the Norse myths are real, then the universe is made from the bones of Ymir. What's your point? "If fairy story X is true, then fairy story X is true!" isn't much of a debating position.
indeed. i always find it odd when Creationists say, "there's not enough evidence for evolution, so i am just going to assume that life was created by magic!"

i don't see where in that it mentions HOYLE winning a Nobel. it says he was helpful to a physicist who won the Nobel, but i can't see where it talks about HOYLE winning a Nobel.
Just to finalize this bit, click here (http://nobelprize.org/) and then do a laureate search for "Hoyle" and you come up empty, 'cause he's not one.

Time to use Google? http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

Incidentally, somebody mentioned looking at dog breeding as proof of evolution. Could somebody point me out a reference to the first dog with half-paws, half-flippers? Or was there something else after fish and before dog? I'd like to believe in evolution, really, but from everything I've seen it's as credible as creation.


Time to look at nobelprize.org and see if you can find him? Don't trust everything you can find on google...

And as for an example of evolution that has taken place in the lab, under controlled conditions, search for "Hugo de Vries" or Oenothera gigas for an example of how speciies can evolve.

(oh crap, I just asked Grave_n_idle and Neo to slaughter me, oh well)
Neo who? Certainly not me?

indeed. i always find it odd when Creationists say, "there's not enough evidence for evolution, so i am just going to assume that life was created by magic!"

Absolutely. And it always has to be their specific brand of magic, too. Constant Creationist lobbying seems to have imposed the idea (mostly in the USA, but none of us are safe) that the Judeo-Christian myths are somehow qualitatively different from every other myth-cycle. This one tiny sub-set of mythology is somehow special, and can be examined scientifically and supporting evidence for its stories can be discovered; or even that Genesis is, if not literal truth, somehow symbolic of the real events -- whereas other creation myths are just silly stories and not to be taken seriously. Or they were all invented by the Devil to confuse us, or by God to Test Our Faith again.

Myths are myths are myths. Great fun to read, often triumphant works of literature, but fundamentally not real. Any story involving magic apples and a talking snake can be dismissed as fantasy on first principles. It's not true, and I know it's not true, in the same way that I know that Sigurd didn't kill a dragon and that Arthur isn't sleeping in Avalon.

Creationists are like idol-worshippers, really: they fix on The Text, and Nothing But The Text. This is the Final Truth, this big old book here; specifically, this translation of it (or, usually, this vague idea of what this particular translation actually says). We must all grovel before The Holy Edition! For a faith that's supposed to embody the Supreme Being, Lord of All, Creator of the Universe, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, it's a bit... banal.

Neo who? Certainly not me?
Nah. Red pill, blue pill Neo.

Just to finalize this bit, click here (http://nobelprize.org/) and then do a laureate search for "Hoyle" and you come up empty, 'cause he's not one.

Right. Which is exactly what I pointed out aabout 20 posts earlier, so I don't know why people are still on this :D. To his credit, probably the main reason he didn't win a Nobel Prize was because of the strange ideas he had about the origin of life among other things. Which is why it's really funny to see someone quoting him in this context.

Wait a sec, I'm taking you are talking about that weird old Steady State Hoyle? :confused:

Wait a sec, I'm taking you are talking about that weird old Steady State Hoyle? :confused:
Yeah, panspermian Hoyle of the Aubrey holes. The man got about. :D

Of course, the fact that evolution has never been proven is very easy for creationists to fall back on. They would be completely right. Evolution hasn't been proven. By the same token it has not been proven that there is a planet called Earth on which we live. It has never been proven that there are actualy such things as humans. Strangely, we takes these things for granted despite the fact that there is obsolutly no proof of there truth.

However, it is quite possible to provide a plausible scientificly measurable theory of creation science that doesn't involve a metaphysical god. It has already been done by a group known as the Raelians.

Of course, the fact that evolution has never been proven is very easy for creationists to fall back on. They would be completely right. Evolution hasn't been proven.

Ouch. :eek:

First of all, evolution has been prooven. Evidence is overwhelming, think of fossil record (stratigraphy, 'missing links'), think of molecular evidence suggesting a common ancestor of all lifeforms, the mere fact that bacterias become resistent to antibiotics etc. etc. - you can't ignore all that, can you?

By the same token it has not been proven that there is a planet called Earth on which we live. It has never been proven that there are actualy such things as humans. Strangely, we takes these things for granted despite the fact that there is obsolutly no proof of there truth.

Cogito ergo sum. That's all I have to say on that, else i must be hallucinating. ;)

However, it is quite possible to provide a plausible scientificly measurable theory of creation science that doesn't involve a metaphysical god. It has already been done by a group known as the Raelians.

WTF? Why the heck do you mention those weirdos? Their claims are totally inconsistent with anything science says. How could you call it scientifically measurable?

Cogito ergo sum. That's all I have to say on that, else i must be hallucinating. ;)


It's not 'I think therefore I am human' though.

It's not 'I think therefore I am human' though.

Nope, it's simply called "I think therefore I am". :p

Nope, it's simply called "I think therefore I am". :p

Yes, so it is pointless as something to use to argue against someone saying that there is no proof that humans exist.

Yes, so it is pointless as something to use to argue against someone saying that there is no proof that humans exist.

Oh... ok, whatever. I have to admit I'm a bit weak on the philosophy side. :rolleyes:

Thanks very much for the various references people have posted; I shall no doubt be reading them for the next month or so :D

And my bad on the Hoyle thing. Still, it does look like he deserved it, from what I've read, and didn't get it due to his other, related and unpopular views.

Ouch. :eek:

First of all, evolution has been prooven. Evidence is overwhelming, think of fossil record (stratigraphy, 'missing links'), think of molecular evidence suggesting a common ancestor of all lifeforms, the mere fact that bacterias become resistent to antibiotics etc. etc. - you can't ignore all that, can you?


Nothing has ever been proven because it is logicaly impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt. There is always a possibility that the evidence was misinterperated or incorrectly measured. It is always possibile that evidence was fabricated by a superior being who is just toying with us. Thus the "the world only looks old because God wants it to" explination used by come creationists.


Cogito ergo sum. That's all I have to say on that, else i must be hallucinating. ;)

Of course, you could be hallucinating. If you can prove that you aren't, let me know.
What he know of reality is limited by what we gether through or senses. We can extend our senses using various devices and examine and measure the world around us. However, these devices could be flawed. Our senses could be flawed. We we believe to be reality could just be a lie or an illusion.
However, barring any evidence to the contrary we must believe that are senses are arcurate. They are all we have, after all.



WTF? Why the heck do you mention those weirdos? Their claims are totally inconsistent with anything science says. How could you call it scientifically measurable?

Because if we meet alines have have polaraoids of themselves creating human life we'll know that it is true. Said aliens, if they existed, existed in our physical universe. There would be physical evidence of them, if not on Earth then elsewhere. As we make our way out of our solarsystem we could begin to measure the evidence or lack thereof consering their existance.

That being said, that the Raelian's fringe beliefs are so close to the beliefs of creationists should set off some red flags somewhere. If one's beliefs phrased slightly differently sound completely insane it is time to consider reevaluating them.

I know what you're getting at, Karas. People have to be careful when they speak of "proof" as there is almost never a time when something is proved (outside of Mathematics, anyway). There can be overwhelming evidence, but never proof.

Anyway, that's just by the way.

Because if we meet alines have have polaraoids of themselves creating human life we'll know that it is true. Said aliens, if they existed, existed in our physical universe. There would be physical evidence of them, if not on Earth then elsewhere. As we make our way out of our solarsystem we could begin to measure the evidence or lack thereof consering their existance.

That being said, that the Raelian's fringe beliefs are so close to the beliefs of creationists should set off some red flags somewhere. If one's beliefs phrased slightly differently sound completely insane it is time to consider reevaluating them.

Well, I'm not saying we are alone in the universe (the universe is too big, hence the claim that we were alone in the universe could never be verified, only falsified), but i figure that life in the universe must be pretty rare, and i'm pretty sure that Earth hasn't been visited so far by any kind of aliens.
And thus life on Earth evolved for billions of years completely without any kind of extraterrestrial intelligence interfering with it.
On the contrary, let me now ask you something? What would hinder you from accepting that the world existed for billions of years before Humans achieved sophoncy? Why all this anthropocentrism?

Myths are myths are myths. Great fun to read, often triumphant works of literature, but fundamentally not real. Any story involving magic apples and a talking snake can be dismissed as fantasy on first principles. It's not true, and I know it's not true, in the same way that I know that Sigurd didn't kill a dragon and that Arthur isn't sleeping in Avalon.Great quote on Yahoo News (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050315/325/febq3.html) that's relevant to this. A senior cardinal, talking about the Da Vinci Code book says:You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real [...] I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that.

I just found that funny... :)

You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real [...] I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that.

I just found that funny... :)

Was he talking about the Da Vinci Code or the Bible? :)

(Sorry I am posting as I read through the thread)

Hey man, that was some good flaming. Next time back your accusations with facts. (oh crap, I just asked Grave_n_idle and Neo to slaughter me, oh well)

As I was taught, the six "days" of creation are actually "six yohms". Or in original English-translated-Jeewish: "YHM" (I was taught this last year so forgive me if I am waaay off). So anyhow, the "yohm" can mean anything from a 24-hour day to a thousand years.

Also, if the Christian God is real, then Genesis can be literal. The Christian God has complete power to do anything and everything he wants however he frakking wants to. So as I see it, if YHWH is real, he could have created everything in an actual 24-hours in six days.

Using the Revelation references, one day IS equal to a thousand years... so there is scriptural precedent... but you are right... the 'days' of creation are 'periods of time'... and we only ASSUME days because of the mention of morning and evening... but THOSE could be 'poetic', if the more open interpretation is taken... for example... "evening" could be Ice Ages, or mass extinctions.

Why was I going to slaughter you?

I couldn't agree more with the original posters comments on having scientifically based things in science class. That is why evolution has no place there. Show me a single of the billions upon billions of inbetween species which evolution relies upon. I can not be shown a single one. Evolution requires an extreme gambler to believe in. In fact. the odds of a single DNA molecule randomly forming, according to noble prize winning scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, is 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, to 1. Consider the hundreds of thousands of DNA molecules that evolutionists claim to have all randomly formed next to each other and you have an incredibly unlikely event. Last time I looked, science was based on facts, not "what if this nearly impossible thing happened".

What a lot of zeroes.. can you cite a source?

By the way... it doesn't matter how unlikely an event is... given an infinite amount of time... eventually, it becomes inevitable.

Time to use Google? http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

Incidentally, somebody mentioned looking at dog breeding as proof of evolution. Could somebody point me out a reference to the first dog with half-paws, half-flippers? Or was there something else after fish and before dog? I'd like to believe in evolution, really, but from everything I've seen it's as credible as creation.

You like google?

Try googling Ambulocetus, I believe it is...

Not a dog/fish... closer to a land whale...

What a lot of zeroes.. can you cite a source?

Basically, Hoyle calculated the raw probability of a bunch of different amino acids just bumping together and spontaneously forming a complete protein all at once from scratch... which with all due respect to Hoyle is a stupid blunder that nobody in the biology field would make.

For a treatment of the usual errors made when people start tossing around these arguments about how amazingly improbably abiogenesis is I'd recommend this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Yeah, i see it's unlikely, but if you read down to the bottom of the article, you'll see it's not totally impossible. Btw, thanks for the link. :)

Great quote on Yahoo News (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050315/325/febq3.html) that's relevant to this. A senior cardinal, talking about the Da Vinci Code book says:

You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real [...] I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that.

I just found that funny... :)

Ohhh, outstanding. Thanks for that. :)