NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, people...what do fellow atheists think about this scary newspaper clipping I found??

Chandra Wickramsinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramsinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: 'I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.' He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been 'strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation'. He concludes: 'The only logical answer to life is creation - and not random accidental shuffling' (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard p. 298.)

By random accidental shuffling I think he means molecules going round and round and eventually happening to form life.

Hello, people! What do fellow atheists think about this scary newspaper clipping I found?

Since when are you an atheist?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9861926#post9861926

Because, my friend slash brother slash person I met on the internet, you risk the HIGH risk of being eternally seperated from Jesus. I know it sounds all poncey, but that's what I believe to be the worst thing that could ever happen to me. Oh yeah, and you could face eternal damnation and all that jazz on top.

Chandra Wickramsinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject

The 'subject' being calculating odds, but not, crucially, chemistry or biology. Appeal to irrelevant authority.

calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramsinghe says that is equivalent to no chance

Hoyle and Wickramsinghe's calculations were meaningless, because they assumed chemical reactions occur randomly when they don't, assumed sequential instead of simultaneous trials, and made numerous other serious errors. They also used a stack of false assumptions like that the first life was exactly as complex as modern simple organisms.

(Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard p. 298.)

It's always good when these things come from tabloid newspapers instead of anything resembling a proper source, isn't it?

In a universe this large and this old, those odds mean that life likely did happen by itself in more than one location. As such, this story is most likely apocryphal.

Also, unless one is intimately aware of how life actually did start, how is one supposed to calculate the odds of it happening?

In other words, this number, 1 X 10^40000 is a big arbitrary pile of cowflop.

Again, this is an example of someone (the original poster,) who is unacquainted enough with science to think this example has any merit.

The fact that it is brought up over and over and over again, only to be debunked, shows the inability of those who resist evolutionary theory to actually learn.

Ah, I like that article. It says that evolution can't be true, since the odds for abiogenesis are impossible, and therefore creationism must be true.
The logic goes: Because something that isn't really that related to A isn't likely, B must obviously be true.
Bad arguement.

Not only is the possibility not actually that low, acoording to the man's own calculations, but his calculations are stupid. I remember reading about this a few months ago; his initial concept was something like "Since Jesus either did or didn't exist, the odds are 50%..."

Since when are you an atheist?



'Fellow atheists' does not mean 'Hello, other atheists'. It just means atheists are people who might be fellows. I know, it's a bit stupid.


The 'subject' being calculating odds, but not, crucially, chemistry or biology. Appeal to irrelevant authority.



But these scientists are calculating the odds of this chemistry/biology happening



Hoyle and Wickramsinghe's calculations were meaningless, because they assumed chemical reactions occur randomly when they don't, assumed sequential instead of simultaneous trials, and made numerous other serious errors. They also used a stack of false assumptions like that the first life was exactly as complex as modern simple organisms.


(a) What makes you think all this?

(b) The first organism, shall we assume, was single celled. OK, so let's assume that there were lots of chemicals bubbling around. The chemicals 'reacted with each other and made proteins which made cells.' That is the current theory. Just one cell is as intricate as a giant high-tech factory. On the outside you've got a security system which only allows exactly the right goods in. That's the cell membrane. Elsewhere in the factory you've got power sources in the cell cytoplasm which can be accessed bya central memory bank (the cell nucleus). The nucleus stores and recienves information, decoding artificial languages at bewildering speeds. Raw materials are directed along miles of corriders, and precision quality control mechanisms prevent any slip-ups. But then the cell does something no high-tech factory ever does. It reproduces itself within a few hours. Getting all of that to exist all in one go is a pretty tall order, no matter how long you've got.



It's always good when these things come from tabloid newspapers instead of anything resembling a proper source, isn't it?

Yeah.

Ah, I like that article. It says that evolution can't be true, since the odds for abiogenesis are impossible, and therefore creationism must be true.
The logic goes: Because something that isn't really that related to A isn't likely, B must obviously be true.
Bad arguement.

Isn't likely at all.

How is it 'not related to A'?

Which would you bet your life on:

(a) This being posted by a person

(b) or by a explosion near a keyboard which happened to be on this website and the debris hitting all the keys to make sequenced, intelligible english words? A mobile phone has keys to press but it is useless without anyone to press them.

Not only is the possibility not actually that low, acoording to the man's own calculations, but his calculations are stupid. I remember reading about this a few months ago; his initial concept was something like "Since Jesus either did or didn't exist, the odds are 50%..."

I didn't say that at all!

It is a fact of history (ask the Roman historians) that Jesus was crucified - and therefore existed. There were thousands of witnesses to his resurrection - they were either all mad, all making it up (but why die for something you know is a lie?) or all truthful. Or all having identical simultaneous hallucinations for no reason.

Just because I accept the theory of evolution (the same way I accept the theory of gravity), doesn't make me an atheist. I'm quite religious, in fact.

Also, abiogenesis and evolution are two different ideas. One deals with the formation of life, and the other deals with its development once it existed. Meaning, abiogenesis doesn't have to be true for evolution to be correct and vice versa.

'Fellow atheists' does not mean 'Hello, other atheists'. It just means atheists are people who might be fellows. I know, it's a bit stupid.Actually, "Fellow athiests" does mean "hello other athiests"...
But these scientists are calculating the odds of this chemistry/biology happeningMathematicians are known for not being in touch with reality. On of my Physics teachers back in school referred to math as "assistant science" and told us not to ever tell any math teachers he said that.
(b) The first organism, shall we assume, was single celled. OK, so let's assume that there were lots of chemicals bubbling around. The chemicals 'reacted with each other and made proteins which made cells.' That is the current theory. Just one cell is as intricate as a giant high-tech factory. On the outside you've got a security system which only allows exactly the right goods in. That's the cell membrane. Elsewhere in the factory you've got power sources in the cell cytoplasm which can be accessed bya central memory bank (the cell nucleus). The nucleus stores and recienves information, decoding artificial languages at bewildering speeds. Raw materials are directed along miles of corriders, and precision quality control mechanisms prevent any slip-ups. But then the cell does something no high-tech factory ever does. It reproduces itself within a few hours. Getting all of that to exist all in one go is a pretty tall order, no matter how long you've got.That's not quite the theory. You're talking about an animal cell found in a human body, and not single celled organisms (the membrane part). And "getting all that to exist" doesn't get described the way you claim it is. Current theory assumes that those little bits and pieces that make up a cell were different organisms at first and then joined together. No scientist worth his/her salt claims that all of a sudden there were single celled organisms with nucleii, mitochondria, and endoplasmic reticulae.

But these scientists are calculating the odds of this chemistry/biology happening

So? They're not experts in that field, so they can't call out authority on it. Albert Einstein might have been a genius physicist, but that doesn't mean he knew shit about genetics or molecular biology.

Another appeal to authority. That they are scientists does not mean they are automatically correct.

(a) What makes you think all this?

The fact that I've read up on the root of these statistics. Hoyle and his buddies worked out the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein from completely random chemical reactions, then cranked that up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes. This generates a ridiculously unlikely figure, but since nobody in their right mind claimed that the first self-replicator was a modern cell, the figure is meaningless.

(b) The first organism, shall we assume, was single celled.

Absolutely false. The first self-replicating organism would have consisted of no cells at all. Cells came much later.

You've fallen for the fallacy Hoyle invoked of claiming that abiogenesis went from simple chemicals to a fully working cell in a single step, which is ludicrous.

Just because I accept the theory of evolution (the same way I accept the theory of gravity), doesn't make me an atheist. I'm quite religious, in fact.

Also, abiogenesis and evolution are two different ideas. One deals with the formation of life, and the other deals with its development once it existed. Meaning, abiogenesis doesn't have to be true for evolution to be correct and vice versa.

Yeah, I believe in microevolution but NOT MACROEVOLUTION, because I believe that humans were created seperately from animals/fish/birds/plants. If macroevolution was right, why have we not discovered any transitional fossils in these hundreds of years we've been digging? I mean, animals with wings not yet strong enought to fly with yet, and that sort of thing.

Evolution ≠ Abiogenesis ≠ Atheism.

Try again.

Isn't likely at all.

How is it 'not related to A'?

Which would you bet your life on:

(a) This being posted by a person

(b) or by a explosion near a keyboard which happened to be on this website and the debris hitting all the keys to make sequenced, intelligible english words? A mobile phone has keys to press but it is useless without anyone to press them.Abiogenesis deals with life generating from not life. Evolution deals with organisms changing. Evolution requires that at some point in time life came to exist. This does not mean that evolution is unthinkable if abiogenesis is proven to be false. There are, technically, other possibilities for life to have occured on this planet.
Therefore, claiming that creation must be true since something we don't know much about is unlikely, completely ignoring that we have other, unrelated evidence to the contrary, is rather silly.
What I'm trying to say is that you can't prove something right by proving something else false. For example: This text is not red, therefore it is green.

Actually, that kind of thing has been discovered. You're assuming that everything fulfills the same purpose now as it did originally, when often this is not the case.

However, I don't have time to engage in a pointless debate since I don't think it would be worth it to debate with someone who thinks that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing. They're not.

And to answer your original question. No, we don't need more faith. Why? Our position is backed with evidence, while the only evidence Creationists' can muster is an old book of dubious origins.

Again, I state that I am not an Atheist, I believe firmly in a god. However, that can neither be proven nor disproven, and so is irrelevant to discussions of science.

That is all. Goodnight.

Yeah, I believe in microevolution but NOT MACROEVOLUTION, because I believe that humans were created seperately from animals/fish/birds/plants. If macroevolution was right, why have we not discovered any transitional fossils in these hundreds of years we've been digging? I mean, animals with wings not yet strong enought to fly with yet, and that sort of thing.Well, we have. We've found wale fossils that still had claws. We've found fish capable of walking on land. Even though its completely unlikely that we find anything (which has to do with the fact that fossils aren't the guaranteed outcome of a dead animal. Oil is another, and you don't find bones in oil), we've still found stuff you've been asking for.

So? They're not experts in that field, so they can't call out authority on it. Um...yes they are. See original post. Albert Einstein might have been a genius physicist, but that doesn't mean he knew shit about genetics or molecular biology. I know.


Another appeal to authority. That they are scientists does not mean they are automatically correct.


It makes it likely that they are correct, because they're experts in that field, and you trust what the scientists have said about the world, don't you?

The fact that I've read up on the root of these statistics. Hoyle and his buddies worked out the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein, then cranked that up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes. This generates a ridiculously unlikely figure, but since nobody in their right mind claimed that the first self-replicator was a modern cell, the figure is meaningless.

I've read up on it too.

OK, so if we divide the figure by 400, we get 4 in 10 to power of 39,998. Still huge. Also, the proteins have to remain intact without any help from a cell. They can come apart as easily as they formed.

You've fallen for the fallacy Hoyle invoked of claiming that abiogenesis went from simple chemicals to a fully working cell in a single step, which is ludicrous.
No, lots of small steps: each set of animo acids forming and staying together, and THEN the chances of them forming the cell so that it is possible for them to reproduce themselves.

OK, so if we divide the figure by 400, we get 4 in 10 to power of 39,998. Still huge. Also, the proteins have to remain intact without any help from a cell. They can come apart as easily as they formed.True, but then again there's a whole ocean of these things swimming around, so chances are, it was going to happen sometime.
No, lots of small steps: each set of animo acids forming and staying together, and THEN the chances of them forming the cell so that it is possible for them to reproduce themselves.You're missing the steps in between amino acids and cell.

I didn't say that at all!

It is a fact of history (ask the Roman historians) that Jesus was crucified - and therefore existed. There were thousands of witnesses to his resurrection - they were either all mad, all making it up (but why die for something you know is a lie?) or all truthful. Or all having identical simultaneous hallucinations for no reason.

'Thousands of witnesses to his resurrection'? Friend, from what I remember of the Bible nobody actually witnessed the resurection, the empty tomb was first found by some women (or a woman depending on which gospel you read), nobody witnessed any kind of resurrection. There have been many instances of people claiming to be things through the course of history (Joan of Arc for example).

Also, while Roman history reveals that there was a man called Jesus it makes no reference to him rising from the dead, only the Bible says that and you can't really treat the Bible as an accurate and objective source of history.

We take the side of science*...because we have a priori commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but...we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes...for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.



*that is so unlikely

If anyone doubts the determination to keep God out of the picture at all costs, they need only consult Prof. Lewontin.

The Daily Express is a tabloid paper from England. It's not quite the Sun or the Star, but it's damn close.

The star once claimed to have found a B52 bomber from WWII on the Moon.

Don't eber take tabloids seriously. Hell, i read the Mail because it's Funny.

And nice try with the whole 'I'm an atheist, honest!' thing.

I take off my hat to your sneakiness. Teach me, o great one, that i can hand in late coursework and not get penalised for it!

True, but then again there's a whole ocean of these things swimming around, so chances are, it was going to happen sometime.

That's what the odds say: no, there isn't a chance.
You're missing the steps in between amino acids and cell.

Sorry. Hardly makes a difference.

*that is so unlikely

If anyone doubts the determination to keep God out of the picture at all costs, they need only consult Prof. Lewontin.That doesn't mean athiesm. It means that science shouldn't accept the idea "I can't explain it, God did it, so there" to answer questions.

Um...yes they are. See original post. I know.

No, they are not. Hoyle and Wingnut are astronomers, not chemists or biologists.

It makes it likely that they are correct, because they're experts in that field, and you trust what the scientists have said about the world, don't you?

Appeal to authority, again. You shouldn't trust people speaking far outside their area of expertise, especially when their claims are so obviously ridiculous.

OK, so if we divide the figure by 400, we get 4 in 10 to power of 39,998. Still huge. Also, the proteins have to remain intact without any help from a cell. They can come apart as easily as they formed.

But since that figure is also meaningless because the first self-replicator was a simple molecule, not a modern protein, who cares?

Try reading this:

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

That's what the odds say: no, there isn't a chance.No they don't. If there was no chance, then the result wouldn't be anything to 1, it would be anything to 0.
Sorry. Hardly makes a difference.Have you had any education on molecular biology? How do you know that it doesn't make a difference?
Judging from your misconceptions on how cell membranes work, I doubt you know much about molecular biology and therefore aren't really an authority on just exactly what the difference between an amino acid and a more complex protein is, let alone that of an organelle or even cell.

'Thousands of witnesses to his resurrection'? Friend, from what I remember of the Bible nobody actually witnessed the resurection, the empty tomb was first found by some women (or a woman depending on which gospel you read), nobody witnessed any kind of resurrection. There have been many instances of people claiming to be things through the course of history (Joan of Arc for example).

Also, while Roman history reveals that there was a man called Jesus it makes no reference to him rising from the dead, only the Bible says that and you can't really treat the Bible as an accurate and objective source of history.

The bible doesn't mention the thousands, so you needn't bother looking...

Medical doctor Alexander Metherell comments: 'The spear apparently went through the lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid...came out...[The Roman historians say] that it had the appearence of a cear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel.

John died for his beliefs. Would you die for something you made up?

The Bible is more trustworthy than many historical documents which are now taken to be completely reliable, for instance:

Piece of work: Herodotus, written between 488-428 BC, earliest surviving copy AD 900, time gp 1,300 years, No. of copies: 8.

Piece of work: New Testament, written between AD 40-100, earliest surviving copy AD 130 , time gap 300 years, no. of copies: 24,300.

There are also trustworthy documents Thucydides, Caesar's gallic War, Livy's Roman History, and Tacitus.

[QUOTE=Laerod]No they don't. If there was no chance, then the result wouldn't be anything to 1, it would be anything to 0.QUOTE]

Well, like the Prof. said, "I am 100% certain..." That tiny possibility isn't really worth betting your life on, is it?

John died for his beliefs. Would you die for something you made up?Are you admitting that every suicide bomber gets 40 virgins after they die?

Well, like the Prof. said, "I am 100% certain..." That tiny possibility isn't really worth betting your life on, is it?The honorable Prof. Hoyle isn't an authority on abiogenisis or even molecular biology. I suggest you read GMC's link.

No, they are not. Hoyle and Wingnut are astronomers, not chemists or biologists.
I meant that they are 'widely regarded as experts on this subject'?


Appeal to authority, again. You shouldn't trust people speaking far outside their area of expertise, especially when their claims are so obviously ridiculous.


How are they ridiculous?

But since that figure is also meaningless because the first self-replicator was a simple molecule, not a modern protein, who cares?


Try reading this:

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

The first self-replicator a molecule? How does that work? That is not life. How do we get from that to the modern protein? The questions go on.

...John died for his beliefs. Would you die for something you made up?...

For the same reason that somebody might die flying a plane into a skyscraper? Does that somehow give fundamental Islam more credibility???

But that's off topic... sorry.

The honorable Prof. Hoyle isn't an authority on abiogenisis or even molecular biology. I suggest you read GMC's link.

I just did. What he is, is widely regarded as an expert in this sublect.

For the same reason that somebody might die flying a plane into a skyscraper? Does that somehow give fundamental Islam more credibility???

But that's off topic... sorry.

An Islam flying a suicide plane thingy is not claiming to have witnessed the proof. He is therefore not dying for something he made up.

So it's irrelevant.

Chandra Wickramsinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University,
hey wow, my uni!! we suck!! :p

but this also assumes life started here on earth (apart from all the other arguements presented against this): the idea that bacteria or primative life (or even the 'building blocks' required for chemical life in a tidy package) came to earth on a meteor or comet, is not an insane one and not to be ruled out. especially not if the other option, as prof whatever sees it, is to throw up one's arms and say 'god did it!' :rolleyes:

I didn't say that at all!

It is a fact of history (ask the Roman historians) that Jesus was crucified - and therefore existed. There were thousands of witnesses to his resurrection - they were either all mad, all making it up (but why die for something you know is a lie?) or all truthful. Or all having identical simultaneous hallucinations for no reason.

Curious, the romans kept records of everyone they ever executed? I find that unlikely. Actually it's more like Jesus was an old pagan god by the name of Mithras, whom you've probably never heard of. He was born in a cave, to a virgin, had some followers, apostles you might say. Died, ascended to heaven, sounding familiar? So uh, if the romans kept such meticulous records as they say, why is it we don't know when Jesus supposedly died?

Read wikipedia, it's got some fun info. Oh, do you think it's coincidence that he was born on the Winter Solstice which is a major pagan holiday and ressurected during the spring when worship of fertility gods took place? Don't be foolish. Christianity has absorbed the holidays and beliefs of other religions because it made it easier to convert the pagans, you just steal their holidays. Base your mythology on theirs, it's not so much changing religion then, just changing a few names and details.

Oh to address your "point" there are billions of stars in this galaxy, billions of galaxies in the universe, sextillions of planets in the universe. If even one in a billion evolves life, and only one in a million of those intelligent life there are still MILLIONS of civilizations out there. Some possibly billions of years beyond ours.

I just did. What he is is widely regarded as an expert in this sublect.Emphasis on HIS subject.
astrophysicist Fred HoyleSame link. First few lines.
Abiogenisis has little if nothing to do with astrophysics.

An Islam flying a suicide plane thingy is not claiming to have witnessed the proof. He is therefore not dying for something he made up.

So it's irrelevant.What a moment, you asked would you die for something you made up. These people die for something, and according to your logic, they wouldn't if it was made up.

hey wow, my uni!! we suck!! :p

but this also assumes life started here on earth (apart from all the other arguements presented against this): the idea that bacteria or primative life (or even the 'building blocks' required for chemical life in a tidy package) came to earth on a meteor or comet, is not an insane one and not to be ruled out. especially not if the other option, as prof whatever sees it, is to throw up one's arms and say 'god did it!' :rolleyes:

If it came on a meteor or comet, that's just moving the problem to a different place. :) This does not solve our debate!!

What a moment, you asked would you die for something you made up. These people die for something, and according to your logic, they wouldn't if it was made up.

But my point is that they didn't die for something they made up, and if that was the case they would know for certain that there was no point in suicide bombing.

I meant that they are 'widely regarded as experts on this subject'?

So if I pull out a WW2-era German tabloid newspaper stating Hitler was a just and righteous man of God, you'd automatically believe Hitler was a just and righteous man of God? What a journalist writes does not automatically become the truth.

Hoyle and Wingnut were not biologists or chemists; they therefore have no professional grounds to claim expertise with regards to a matter of chemistry and biology. They are laymen.

In addition, even if they were regarded as experts [and they're not, Hoyle in particular is regarded as a crackpot] that doesn't mean they're infallable.

How are they ridiculous?

Because they're based on utterly false assumptions and crappy math.

The first self-replicator a molecule? How does that work? That is not life. How do we get from that to the modern protein? The questions go on.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact that you, personally, can't see how doesn't make it impossible. And since the linked article explained exactly how, it makes it fairly obvious you didn't read it.

Emphasis on HIS subject.
Same link. First few lines.
Abiogenisis has little if nothing to do with astrophysics.

Not HIS subject. THIS subject. Can't you read? :rolleyes: :) :p I like smilies!

If it came on a meteor or comet, that's just moving the problem to a different place. :) This does not solve our debate!!Actually, it does. It states that by proving abiogenisis wrong, you don't prove evolution wrong, since, even if they probably didn't generate on their own, cells still could have been brought by a comet.

Not HIS subject. THIS subject. Can't you read? :rolleyes: :) :p I like smilies!"This" subject is molecular biology. Not astrophysics.
An astrophycisist is as reliable a source for molecular biology as a used car salesman for childcare.

There was a meteor found in Antarctica that had what appeared to be fossilized microbes in it's core. Apparently it came from Mars a few billion years ago. The first life on this planet if it originated here would not of been cells, there would of been no cell walls at first, cell walls are defensive structures. Defense evolving implies there was something hostile to it. Defenses are in their very nature reactionary.

So if I pull out a WW2-era German tabloid newspaper stating Hitler was a just and righteous man of God, you'd automatically believe Hitler was a just and righteous man of God? What a journalist writes does not automatically become the truth.


I know. But The journalist writes what someone else said, not what he/she him/herself says.



Hoyle and Wingnut were not biologists or chemists; they therefore have no professional grounds to claim expertise with regards to a matter of chemistry and biology. They are laymen.



Neither do I, but I do know about the animo acids and things from reading up. I am not widely regarded as an expert on them, but I do know the facts.



In addition, even if they were regarded as experts [and they're not, Hoyle in particular is regarded as a crackpot] that doesn't mean they're infallable.



Yeah. It means that they have more reason to be right than me or you. A crackpot does not become a professor of Cardiff University.





Argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact that you, personally, can't see how doesn't make it impossible.

I realise that. that's why I was asking the questions.

And since the linked article explained exactly how, it makes it fairly obvious you didn't read it.

Admittedly, I cannot read thousands of words in just five minutes.

If you cannot read that fast, perhaps you should not post that fast.

There was a meteor found in Antarctica that had what appeared to be fossilized microbes in it's core. Apparently it came from Mars a few billion years ago. The first life on this planet if it originated here would not of been cells, there would of been no cell walls at first, cell walls are defensive structures. Defense evolving implies there was something hostile to it. Defenses are in their very nature reactionary.

Again, moving the problem of life starting to a meteor doesn't solve HOW it started.

If it came on a meteor or comet, that's just moving the problem to a different place. :) This does not solve our debate!!
well if the conditions for abiogenisis on earth are so low, maybe they were higher somewhere else in the universe. hence abiogenisis is still possible dispite the low probability of it occurring on earth (if that article is to be believed), and also allowing evolutionary theory to still be a-ok

its actually much less far-fetched than believing in some mythical omipotent being...

How it started is irrelevant to the question of wether evolution is correct. It is. I am not a cellular biologist, but most structures in modern cells are thought to be captured microrganisms. Eventually becoming symbyotic and becoming one organism. Life appeared on Earth very quickly after it's formation, but it stayed single cell for a very long time. Evolution took time, always does.

...by proving abiogenisis wrong, you don't prove evolution wrong, since, even if they probably didn't generate on their own, cells still could have been brought by a comet.

I am not attempting to prove evolution wrong. Evolution is fine by me.

Aaaargh! How many times? If they probably didn't generate on their own, how is it any different on a comet than on earth?

How it started is irrelevant to the question of wether evolution is correct. It is. I am not a cellular biologist, but most structures in modern cells are thought to be captured microrganisms. Eventually becoming symbyotic and becoming one organism. Life appeared on Earth very quickly after it's formation, but it stayed single cell for a very long time. Evolution took time, always does.

I am not arguing about evolution. Evolution is fine by me.

well if the conditions for abiogenisis on earth are so low, maybe they were higher somewhere else in the universe. hence abiogenisis is still possible dispite the low probability of it occurring on earth (if that article is to be believed), and also allowing evolutionary theory to still be a-ok

its actually much less far-fetched than believing in some mythical omipotent being...

We are not trying to explain the possibility of life on other planets. We are trying to explain why it is here, on earth.
OK, there are arguments for this on both sides. We are going nowhere. How about someone explains how the universe started? I mean, how could the Big bang happen without help from an intelligent designer?

Aaaargh! How many times? If they probably didn't generate on their own, how is it any different on a comet than on earth?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9886206&postcount=48

We are not trying to explain the possibility of life on other planets. We are trying to explain why it is here, on earth.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

We are not trying to explain the possibility of life on other planets. We are trying to explain why it is here, on earth.
OK, there are arguments for this on both sides. We are going nowhere. How about someone explains how the universe started? I mean, how could the Big bang happen without help from an intelligent designer?

How could the Intelligent Designer happen without another Intelligent Designer?

How could the Intelligent Designer happen without another Intelligent Designer?

He didn't 'happen'. Unlike the universe, he was always there, because he created time, so nothing can have been before him.

He didn't 'happen'. Unlike the universe, he was always there, because he created time, so nothing can have been before him.

We know the universe isn't eternal because if it was, the stars and sun would have burnt out long before now, like an apple left at the bottom of a fruit bowl. Any physical system becomes more random and less organised over time. For instance, the planets and moons we know to be slowing down. They would have also stopped by now. Order to chaos, always the case. It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You didn't put in God exsists and so does evolution on the poll. You're just going by the idea that everyone you beleives in God is a crazy fanatic.

He didn't 'happen'. Unlike the universe, he was always there, because he created time, so nothing can have been before him.

Interesting. I'd like to see a scientific theory based on that.

Many Christians are struck by the similarity between the Big Bang theory and Bible:

Genesis 1:1-5

First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all up and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! The cosmos in chaos: no shape, no form, no function - just darkness...total. And floating above it all, God's Holy Spirit, ready for action. Day one: Then God's voice booms out 'Lights!' and, from nowherem light floods the skies and 'night' is swept off the scene. God gives it the big thumbs up, calls it 'day'.

(c)2003 by Rob Lacey, the Street Bible

You didn't put in God exsists and so does evolution on the poll. You're just going by the idea that everyone you beleives in God is a crazy fanatic.

I believe in God and also evolution. So I clicked 'Intelligent Design rocks - coincidence is too unlikely' on the poll.

Interesting. I'd like to a scientific theory based on that.

You'd like to...? What? I seem to have misheard you. Please fill in your missing word!! :)

You'd like to...? What? I seem to have misheard you. Please fill in your missing word!! :)

Just insert "see".

Do you have any?

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides. Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing wil ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all. So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion urns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in in 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it! And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. One false move and it's all over. Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance. What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.

(c) Adrian Holloway 2004

________________________________________________________________

There is about twice as much of this stuff again, but this thread has now stopped because I'm going for lunch. Bye!

You can go away now. Nothing to see here. It's stopped. I've gone for lunch. Bye! ;)

A. If you can't understand why an astrophyisicist isn't an authority on molecular biology thewn you might as well stop arguing now, because you'll never get it.

B. It's BECAUSE here the variables were just right here on Earth (i.e. that we exist at a distance from the sun where all 3 stages of water are represented, etc.,) that life developed here. If the Earth wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, in a universe this large, there must be countless planets where the conditions are favorable for the development of life.

C. Finding the probability of something AFTER the fact is no way to disprove something, unless you have proof that something else is MORE likely. Since there is no PROOF that God created life, then the probability of that can't even begin to be calculated, therefore it's impossible to say divine creation is more likely.

D. Also, the finding of the probability of something AFTER the fact is all but meaningless. Take six decks of cards. Shuffle them well. Deal them all out. The chances against the exact outcome you come up with is astronomical as well, and yet that outcome is as equally likely as anything else. How would you feel if an expert on probability just told you that the order of cards you dealt out was impossible? You'd think he was loony...much like everyone who has a passing acquaintance with modern abiogenesis theory thinks these people are loony.

You should have made the option: 4. Statistical evidence is meaningless if so many assumptions have to be made.

I actually believe in God, but don't think statistics does anything to prove or disprove an intelligent being created life.

Oh I believe in evolution and in God. I believe evolution is God's invention to make life that is adapted to the environment. I would have to reject a lot of solid evidence to believe otherwise.

I resent the assumption in your questions that I either have to believe in evolution and be an Atheist, or believe in God and be a creationist.

The bible doesn't mention the thousands, so you needn't bother looking...

Medical doctor Alexander Metherell comments: 'The spear apparently went through the lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid...came out...[The Roman historians say] that it had the appearence of a cear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel.

John died for his beliefs. Would you die for something you made up?

The Bible is more trustworthy than many historical documents which are now taken to be completely reliable, for instance:

Piece of work: Herodotus, written between 488-428 BC, earliest surviving copy AD 900, time gp 1,300 years, No. of copies: 8.

Piece of work: New Testament, written between AD 40-100, earliest surviving copy AD 130 , time gap 300 years, no. of copies: 24,300.

There are also trustworthy documents Thucydides, Caesar's gallic War, Livy's Roman History, and Tacitus.

You still haven't told me where you got 'thousands' from, do you have a source or was it one of the 82.94% of statistics that are made up on the spot?

And no, the Bible still isn't reliable as a historical document. Much of it is based on fact to some extent but there are bits which can be clearly shown to be wrong. Just because some other documents can be shown to be wrong doesn't make the Bible right (in the same way that proving that evolution was wrong wouldn't make creationism true.

Bambambambambam,

Sorry to say but there is a reason why even the Christians are dissagreeing with you.

Yeah, I believe in microevolution but NOT MACROEVOLUTION, because I believe that humans were created seperately from animals/fish/birds/plants. If macroevolution was right, why have we not discovered any transitional fossils in these hundreds of years we've been digging? I mean, animals with wings not yet strong enought to fly with yet, and that sort of thing.


For one, we have found transitional fossils, just not for everything. Another thing we have genetic evidence so we don't have to rely on less trustworthy fields such as anthropology (when it comes to human evolution). For example a few related organisms may have the exact same mutation in a gene, yet other mammals have that same gene, but not that mutation. Another thing, we have endegenous retroviruses (viruses that have inserted themselve into our DNA). Related organisms often have the exact same virus in the exact same location. These viruses insert mostly randomly (most do have some preference for active genes, but not a particular active gene and not between the same two base pairs of that gene). Since you like statistical arguments so much calculate the probability of the virus inserting in the exact same place in multiple species. Then multiple that several fold because of multiple such occurances. Add in the chances of the same mutation happening in the same place. You will find that modification with decent had to occur. The only logical conclusion is that they all arose from the same species (a common ancestor).

No matter how many times you claim that the scientists who said this are experts in the field and well respected doesn't make it so. Us biologist (yes I'm one of them) find the argument silly. He makes too many assumptions about things none of us really know much about. This is obvious in the fact that it is out of date. It's based on the idea that proteins arose first, while statistitically its more likely that RNA arrose first. RNA can catalyze reactions just like proteins can if the sequence and folding are correct. It's quite possible we can keep thinking of ways that make it more and more likely and chop that number down quite a bit.

Oh and by the way. Just being a scientist doesn't mean they don't believe in silly ideas. Yes science requires a certain level of intelligence and logic. But people that are able to apply intelligence and logic in one area often are incapable of applying it in other areas. It's funny that you so blindly trust this guy, but don't trust the biologists (nearly all of them) which claim that macroevolution occurs. Clearly you don't think scientists are always right, why do you think he is right?

That said the scientific evidence for ambiogenesis is week, so I don't have issues with people claiming something else may have happened. Though that does nothing to disprove evolution.

Oh, and to everyone who thinks 10^40000 is bound to happen eventually clearly you don't understand how big that number really is. It's just about impossible. My problem is I don't trust how that number is calculated.

Oh and I feel I have authority to talk about this because.
1. I'm a biologist
2. I'm a Christian and understand many of the Christian arguments
3. I went to a Christian conference and had someone who had worked either on this argument or a similar one personally talk to us. And it seemed bogus. I've also been to events with invited speakers who where making this argument.

"Do Evolutionists need more faith than Creationists?"

No. Evolution is a scientific theory, and therefore requires supporting evidence, not faith.

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides. Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing wil ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all. So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion urns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in in 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it! And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. One false move and it's all over. Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance. What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.

(c) Adrian Holloway 2004

________________________________________________________________

There is about twice as much of this stuff again, but this thread has now stopped because I'm going for lunch. Bye!

Ever heard of the Anthropic principle?

Hello, people...what do fellow atheists think about this scary newspaper clipping I found??

Chandra Wickramsinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramsinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: 'I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.' He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been 'strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation'. He concludes: 'The only logical answer to life is creation - and not random accidental shuffling' (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard p. 298.)

By random accidental shuffling I think he means molecules going round and round and eventually happening to form life.
Good! that supports the theory of life arriving from extra-solarsystem.

I am not attempting to prove evolution wrong. Evolution is fine by me.

Aaaargh! How many times? If they probably didn't generate on their own, how is it any different on a comet than on earth?

You've stated that you dont beleive in macroevolution, I think thats what everyones talking about when they say evolution in this case.

If we can find evidence that life did come from a comet it just means we probably wont be able to figure it out exactly untill we find where the comet came from. Although i dont beleive the comet hypothesis has many adherents at the moment, thought i could be wrong.

Aaaargh! How many times? If they probably didn't generate on their own, how is it any different on a comet than on earth?
The article specifically says that the fellow doesn't believe the conditions on earth are right for life to arise here. We cannot take that conclusion and apply it to any other planets whose conditions are unknown.

1:10^40 000. There could be 10^40 000 planets. So we're the one with life. It is hard to imagine, but it is possible.

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides. Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing wil ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all. So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion urns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in in 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it! And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. One false move and it's all over. Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance. What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.

(c) Adrian Holloway 2004

________________________________________________________________

There is about twice as much of this stuff again, but this thread has now stopped because I'm going for lunch. Bye!

the laws happen to be that precise because we are around to notice them. if the laws weren't that exact match, then we wouldn't be here to ask questions about them.

its like winning a hand of a card game where the odds are stacked against you and exclaiming that you can't possibly have won because you just worked out the odds.

1:10^40 000. There could be 10^40 000 planets. So we're the one with life. It is hard to imagine, but it is possible.

there are 100 stars in our galaxy alone for every single grain of sand on our planet. thats hundereds of billions at least, so i'd say so.

at least thats what sam neil told me on that BBC Space documentary series

apparently no one understands scientific notation. There are not that many planets in our universe from our current understanding. If someone could come up with a more solid argument that 1:10^40,000 was the probability for life arising without God then I would be inclined to agree that God is more likely. But you can't use these statistics to prove God, only to prove that life didn't arise entirely how the best scientific modles say it does if the universe works exactly how we think it does. Those are awfully big assumptions. Just to help those who can't comprehend the size of this number 10^4000 equals the following (keep in mind this is 1/10 of the number proposed (the number is awfully big, please forgive me if I get the number of zeros slightlywrong)) =
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

apparently no one understands scientific notation. There are not that many planets in our universe from our current understanding. If someone could come up with a more solid argument that 1:10^40,000 was the probability for life arising without God then I would be inclined to agree that God is more likely. But you can't use these statistics to prove God, only to prove that life didn't arise entirely how the best scientific modles say it does if the universe works exactly how we think it does. Those are awfully big assumptions. Just to help those who can't comprehend the size of this number 10^4000 equals the following (keep in mind this is 1/10 of the number proposed (the number is awfully big, please forgive me if I get the number of zeros slightlywrong)) =
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

You were two out!!!!:mad:

You were two out!!!!:mad:

I fixed it. Yeah I ment to add an extra 0 to the first line because I had the 1 there but forgot what I was doing and took one away instead.

I've watched the discussion and have seen how both sides run into road blocks.

The creationists don't understand Genesis. Israel had the creation story before Moses, but it was lost during the captivity in Egypt. The creation story was taught as part of the temple ceremonies to instuct the people on their correct relationship with Deity. The ceremony had two vectors of learning

- first what was said during the creation drama as it was acted out in the temple. Each time they attended this, it was exactly the same, but the lessons learned were important.

- second, each person attending the ceremony received additional intelligence through revelation.

The text, translated from the original Hebrew says "In the beginning, the gods organized the heavens and this world." This world, according to the revelation, was not created, but organized from already existing materials. The materials couldn't "coagulate" anymore than the asteroid belt could. The people knew that not only this world had been organized, but others had been, also. In one of the books written by Abraham, he is taken on a revelatory trip through the universe. He is shown other stars, shown their structure, shown that all objects in the universe act on each other. Creation ex-nilhio is never discussed in Genesis. Creationism is a new concept, fairly extra-biblical, and supported only by the NIV (new, improved version).

The so-called Christian fundamentalists refuse to adhere to the fundamentals. They say "The Bible says . . ." The Bible says nothing. Prophets do. They never quote prophets just take bits and pieces out of scripture, follow them with the book, chapter, and verse, and say because it is written, it is so. I've seen so much stuff on this site that is out of context, it makes my head spin. Instead of quoting from the Bible, they should actually READ the darned thing.

The evolutionary arguments by those who hold to it are just as shrill. I hold that scientific inquiry is necessary and is a pretty good way to find true principles. The problem is that the standard has been bent beyond recognition. There are many points of the big bang and evolution that just don't make sense. For example, if the big bang is possible, why don't we see other examples of it? If it can happen once, it should have happened at other times when singularities explode. There is no evidence of an epicenter of the explosion. Since all energy, and the resulting matter, would be moving at the speed of light away from the explosion. It would continue on this course, in a straight line, forever. There should be only matter and energy in a thin, homogenious bubble, approximately 10 billion light years in radius (depnding on to who's estimate you subscribe). Instead we find a stew from one side of the known universe to another, of galaxies that are non-uniformly distributed, with no large, obvious voids that would tell us where the original, first cause ocurred.

Also, life from inanimate matter has never been demonstrated. As far as homo sapien being a product of evolution, there has never been an actual genetic link in between the species that are suspected of being forbearers and products.

There is a great deal of work to be done before current scientific orthodoxy can become convincing. The scientific community needs to ask more questions, rather than just accepting or rejecting new information soley on the basis of whether it backs up current orthodox thought.

The evolutionary arguments by those who hold to it are just as shrill. I hold that scientific inquiry is necessary and is a pretty good way to find true principles. The problem is that the standard has been bent beyond recognition. There are many points of the big bang and evolution that just don't make sense. For example, if the big bang is possible, why don't we see other examples of it? If it can happen once, it should have happened at other times when singularities explode. There is no evidence of an epicenter of the explosion. Since all energy, and the resulting matter, would be moving at the speed of light away from the explosion. It would continue on this course, in a straight line, forever. There should be only matter and energy in a thin, homogenious bubble, approximately 10 billion light years in radius (depnding on to who's estimate you subscribe). Instead we find a stew from one side of the known universe to another, of galaxies that are non-uniformly distributed, with no large, obvious voids that would tell us where the original, first cause ocurred.

Also, life from inanimate matter has never been demonstrated. As far as homo sapien being a product of evolution, there has never been an actual genetic link in between the species that are suspected of being forbearers and products.

There is a great deal of work to be done before current scientific orthodoxy can become convincing. The scientific community needs to ask more questions, rather than just accepting or rejecting new information soley on the basis of whether it backs up current orthodox thought.

I suppose you're trying to be balanced and criticise both sides but these arguments dont stick. When you see an explosion, does all the matter explode out in a sphere? No, some is propelled faster so, as with the universe, all points are moving away from each other. I'm hardly an expert in this subject but maybe we dont see other big bangs happening today because the conditions arent nearly the same as 15 billion years ago.
Maybe the answer to this question has already been found but you havent read about it yet.

Self replicating molecules from non life has been shown but no, on the whole the abiogenesis thing hasnt (as far as i know) been perfected. But so what? Science doesnt have all the answers and doesnt claim to (althought some of its adherents may do) there is work ongoing in this area though so they may find the answer soon. This has nothing to do with evolution though.

As for the last paragraph. Science is all about accepting new theories if the evidence backs them up. A lot of creationists accuse scientists of being closeted and never accepting new ideas. Some of them (the worst ones) may be like this but if a new theory has merit, over time it will be accepted.

The evolutionary arguments by those who hold to it are just as shrill. I hold that scientific inquiry is necessary and is a pretty good way to find true principles. The problem is that the standard has been bent beyond recognition. There are many points of the big bang and evolution that just don't make sense. For example, if the big bang is possible, why don't we see other examples of it? If it can happen once, it should have happened at other times when singularities explode. There is no evidence of an epicenter of the explosion. Since all energy, and the resulting matter, would be moving at the speed of light away from the explosion. It would continue on this course, in a straight line, forever. There should be only matter and energy in a thin, homogenious bubble, approximately 10 billion light years in radius (depnding on to who's estimate you subscribe). Instead we find a stew from one side of the known universe to another, of galaxies that are non-uniformly distributed, with no large, obvious voids that would tell us where the original, first cause ocurred.

Here you will find a picture how the Big Bang happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

I suppose you're trying to be balanced and criticise both sides but these arguments dont stick.

I'm not trying to be balanced - I'm showing what I believe to be true: that neither side is right. Theologians are in the business of selling the philosophies, mingled with scripture, ignoring what the prophets have said, and will again; and scientists will only stand behind their own pet theories, only to the extent that they'll be able to keep making a living - they will never say or do anything that will stop the checks from coming, even if they believe a mistake has been made. Both sides are particularly disingenuous.

When you see an explosion, does all the matter explode out in a sphere? No, some is propelled faster so, as with the universe, all points are moving away from each other. I'm hardly an expert in this subject but maybe we dont see other big bangs happening today because the conditions arent nearly the same as 15 billion years ago.
Maybe the answer to this question has already been found but you havent read about it yet.

I'm VERY familiar with explosions. When something explodes, the force goes out equally in all directions, barring the use of the Monroe Effect (doesn't apply here) or the Miznay-Chardin Effect (ditto on applicability). An explosive wave goes out until it is reflected on a surface, or traveling through a solid object hits a free-reflective surface. All portions travel at the same speed since the same amount of energy has been applied (were this not true, implosion nuclear devices would be a physical impossibility). Since we're talking about proto-matter, each particle or proto-particle would travel at the same speed. Since the matter in the universe has been shown to be traveling at the speed of light, we can postulate that all of the exhaust of the big-bang would have "left the building" at light-speed. There is nothing to slow it down, so it should travel straight, at the same speed, using an infinite number of angles from center. We do not see that - not even close.

Self replicating molecules from non life has been shown but no, on the whole the abiogenesis thing hasnt (as far as i know) been perfected. But so what? Science doesnt have all the answers and doesnt claim to (althought some of its adherents may do) there is work ongoing in this area though so they may find the answer soon. This has nothing to do with evolution though.

It has everything to do with evolution. Without replication of the entire concept, then it's not a theory, it's an interesting hypothesis with lots of problems.

As for the last paragraph. Science is all about accepting new theories if the evidence backs them up. A lot of creationists accuse scientists of being closeted and never accepting new ideas. Some of them (the worst ones) may be like this but if a new theory has merit, over time it will be accepted.

I would disagree. Science is all about orthodoxy. If science was all about new theories, then there'd be no cryptobiologists, just biologists. Previously unknown animals are not accepted, even though there may be a huge amount of evidence, the scientific community won't accept their existence unless they're hit square in the face with it and there's no way out.

This is just one example, but there's others - such as pre-columbian transoceanic contact with the Americas. The scientific evidence is staggering, but there's not even a corner of scientific orthodoxy that's willing to even look at this.

Until science, like theologians, is willing to look and think outside the box and see what REALLY happened, then we'll just drift along with the same old theories. Both sides of this argument have no room for the truth if it has anything to do with orthodoxy being wrong.

An explosive wave goes out until it is reflected on a surface, or traveling through a solid object hits a free-reflective surface. All portions travel at the same speed since the same amount of energy has been applied

Not quite; they travel with the same momentum or sum kinetic energy, but not the same speed or velocity, since that is also partially dependent upon mass. A truck and a bowling ball moving at the same velocity would have radically different amounts of momentum behind them, and by the same token, supposing a bowling ball and a truck had the same momentum, the bowling ball would likely be moving significantly faster than the truck.

That being said, you are correct in that since the energy particles of the big bang should be well-nigh identical in mass, they should have approximately the same velocity.

As for the main point, I believe that the person in question was trying to calculate an approximation for the Drake equation, in which case a degree in astronomy and applied mathematics would be beneficial. That being said, I have a hard time seeing how, given how little knowledge we have of other star systems, and the fact that we don't have measuring instruments sophisticated enough to detect M-class planets yet, that he could come up with any kind of accurate answer to the Drake equation.

I'm VERY familiar with explosions. When something explodes, the force goes out equally in all directions, barring the use of the Monroe Effect (doesn't apply here) or the Miznay-Chardin Effect (ditto on applicability). An explosive wave goes out until it is reflected on a surface, or traveling through a solid object hits a free-reflective surface. All portions travel at the same speed since the same amount of energy has been applied. Since we're talking about proto-matter, each particle or proto-particle would travel at the same speed. Since the matter in the universe has been shown to be traveling at the speed of light, we can postulate that all of the exhaust of the big-bang would have "left the building" at light-speed. There is nothing to slow it down, so it should travel straight, at the same speed, using an infinite number of angles from center. We do not see that - not even close.


It's an interesting theory... but it doesn't allow for mass or gravity, does it? Remember, if there WAS a 'first explosion', the wavefront would be expanding into absolute nothingness.... no forces to attract or repel. Our exploding 'matter', on the other hand, would have an inertial force applied, but ALSO be under the influence of gravitational forces for OTHER masses in the same expanding field.

Since the mass distribution would be unlikely to be EXACTLY identical at all points, in the initial expansion, there would be a number of 'gravitic' centres on the expanding wave, exerting forces on each other and on the other mass, slowing some parts of that wavefront, and affecting the direction of other parts...

How far 'out' a body would be would largely be determined by how long after the initial push it became coherent, and how many other bodies exerted influence on it.

This SHOULD give a model of an expanding universe with varying densities of material, all apparently originating at the same point... which is what we see.

I think the problem is, you are trying to apply terrestrial physics (i.e. with inhibitive forces exterior to the reaction, and with finite limits) to a macrocosmic process.

I've watched the discussion and have seen how both sides run into road blocks.

The creationists don't understand Genesis. Israel had the creation story before Moses, but it was lost during the captivity in Egypt. The creation story was taught as part of the temple ceremonies to instuct the people on their correct relationship with Deity. The ceremony had two vectors of learning

- first what was said during the creation drama as it was acted out in the temple. Each time they attended this, it was exactly the same, but the lessons learned were important.

- second, each person attending the ceremony received additional intelligence through revelation.

The text, translated from the original Hebrew says "In the beginning, the gods organized the heavens and this world." This world, according to the revelation, was not created, but organized from already existing materials. The materials couldn't "coagulate" anymore than the asteroid belt could. The people knew that not only this world had been organized, but others had been, also. In one of the books written by Abraham, he is taken on a revelatory trip through the universe. He is shown other stars, shown their structure, shown that all objects in the universe act on each other. Creation ex-nilhio is never discussed in Genesis. Creationism is a new concept, fairly extra-biblical, and supported only by the NIV (new, improved version).

The so-called Christian fundamentalists refuse to adhere to the fundamentals. They say "The Bible says . . ." The Bible says nothing. Prophets do. They never quote prophets just take bits and pieces out of scripture, follow them with the book, chapter, and verse, and say because it is written, it is so. I've seen so much stuff on this site that is out of context, it makes my head spin. Instead of quoting from the Bible, they should actually READ the darned thing.

The evolutionary arguments by those who hold to it are just as shrill. I hold that scientific inquiry is necessary and is a pretty good way to find true principles. The problem is that the standard has been bent beyond recognition. There are many points of the big bang and evolution that just don't make sense. For example, if the big bang is possible, why don't we see other examples of it? If it can happen once, it should have happened at other times when singularities explode. There is no evidence of an epicenter of the explosion. Since all energy, and the resulting matter, would be moving at the speed of light away from the explosion. It would continue on this course, in a straight line, forever. There should be only matter and energy in a thin, homogenious bubble, approximately 10 billion light years in radius (depnding on to who's estimate you subscribe). Instead we find a stew from one side of the known universe to another, of galaxies that are non-uniformly distributed, with no large, obvious voids that would tell us where the original, first cause ocurred.

Also, life from inanimate matter has never been demonstrated. As far as homo sapien being a product of evolution, there has never been an actual genetic link in between the species that are suspected of being forbearers and products.

There is a great deal of work to be done before current scientific orthodoxy can become convincing. The scientific community needs to ask more questions, rather than just accepting or rejecting new information soley on the basis of whether it backs up current orthodox thought.
Thank you!!! *falls down on her knees*

It is a fact of history (ask the Roman historians) that Jesus was crucified - and therefore existed. There were thousands of witnesses to his resurrection - they were either all mad, all making it up (but why die for something you know is a lie?) or all truthful. Or all having identical simultaneous hallucinations for no reason.
That's not a fact at all. There are no records of a Jesus of Nazareth being executed. There are no roman historans who reported his existence either. Stop lying to people, it doesn't add to your argument.

That's not a fact at all. There are no records of a Jesus of Nazareth being executed. There are no roman historans who reported his existence either. Stop lying to people, it doesn't add to your argument.

As far as I'm aware, there are no INDEPENDENT and CONTEMPORARY accounts to prove that this 'Jesus' fellow even lived.

All we have that is 'contemporary' (i.e. possibly written by people who possibly could have been witnesses) is written by people claiming to be members of the community - so very much NOT independent.

And, of course, the earliest 'independent' account is Josephus, of which there is much controversy as to whether the references are even genuine... and who was not even born at the time of the alleged crucifixion.

That's not a fact at all. There are no records of a Jesus of Nazareth being executed. There are no roman historans who reported his existence either. Stop lying to people, it doesn't add to your argument.

Both Josephus and Tacitus mention him, IIRC. Moreover, if you seriously want to argue that Jesus never lived, then you are going to have to explain how a Jewish sect suddenly sprang up in Jerusalem where the central figure was a guy who had just recently and very publicly been executed. If said guy was imaginary, how in the hell would Christianity have even begun in such a circumstance?

Both Josephus and Tacitus mention him, IIRC. Moreover, if you seriously want to argue that Jesus never lived, then you are going to have to explain how a Jewish sect suddenly sprang up in Jerusalem where the central figure was a guy who had just recently and very publicly been executed. If said guy was imaginary, how in the hell would Christianity have even begun in such a circumstance?

Josephus mentions a man 'called Christ'... he doesn't say he WAS Christ. The other reference in Josephus that seems to point that way, is popularly believed to be a much later addition by a different author.

Of course, neither Josephus or Tacitus are anything LIKE contemporary... to claim it to be so, is like trying to insist I could write a reliable account of the American Civil War, based on my experiences.

Also - perhaps you don't know much about the region at the time, but Jesus (if he existed at all) was only one of MANY 'desert prophets' who were moderately popular for a time. For most, the following died when they did.

As I believe someone already pointed out, there is substantial evidence to suggest that the Jesus story is an appropriation of other local tales... mainly Mithraism and early Buddhism... with the image of Jesus probably being inspired by Serapis.

apparently no one understands scientific notation. There are not that many planets in our universe from our current understanding. If someone could come up with a more solid argument that 1:10^40,000 was the probability for life arising without God then I would be inclined to agree that God is more likely. But you can't use these statistics to prove God, only to prove that life didn't arise entirely how the best scientific modles say it does if the universe works exactly how we think it does. Those are awfully big assumptions.
Uh... what is this garbage about there not being that many planets in our universe? That's 100% bullshit.

The whole odds thing makes it seem like because something is improbable, it's not possible. Consider what the odds are of everyone on Earth being exactly where they are right now at this given moment. Not that can work it out, but something like :
(5.15x10^15)!/(5.15x10^15 - 4 x 10^9)! : 1

The chances of everyone being exactly where they are right now is so small, one would think it was impossible, but considering everyone's gotta be somewhere, it had to happen. I would say the same kind of thought would apply to life.

For example, if the big bang is possible, why don't we see other examples of it? If it can happen once, it should have happened at other times when singularities explode. There is no evidence of an epicenter of the explosion. Since all energy, and the resulting matter, would be moving at the speed of light away from the explosion. It would continue on this course, in a straight line, forever. There should be only matter and energy in a thin, homogenious bubble, approximately 10 billion light years in radius (depnding on to who's estimate you subscribe). Instead we find a stew from one side of the known universe to another, of galaxies that are non-uniformly distributed, with no large, obvious voids that would tell us where the original, first cause ocurred.
You only think this disproves the theory because you really don't understand what the big bang theory is about. The big bang isn't so much of an expolsion as an expansion. Spacetime itself is expanding (not at the speed of light either... I don't know where you got that idea) matter is not being thrown out from an epicentre, that's not even in the theory. So how about you learn about the damn theory to start with before you go about spouting off your misconceptions and saying that the theory is wrong for reasons it isn't just because you fail to understand it.
Furthermore, the big bang is not part of the theory of evolution and neither theory preculdes the existence of a deity. God is irrelevant to science.

Also, life from inanimate matter has never been demonstrated. As far as homo sapien being a product of evolution, there has never been an actual genetic link in between the species that are suspected of being forbearers and products.
Uh... yes there has. Also, aboigenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Try again.

There is a great deal of work to be done before current scientific orthodoxy can become convincing. The scientific community needs to ask more questions, rather than just accepting or rejecting new information soley on the basis of whether it backs up current orthodox thought.
The scientific community does ask questions... and the scientific community never accepts these things as factual, the whole premise of science is to test these theories until they either fail them and are eliminated or succeed and are further confirmed. Evolution and the big bang have both been tested thorughly and have succeeded thus far, with some minor tinkering to the theories, of course.

Both Josephus and Tacitus mention him, IIRC. Moreover, if you seriously want to argue that Jesus never lived, then you are going to have to explain how a Jewish sect suddenly sprang up in Jerusalem where the central figure was a guy who had just recently and very publicly been executed. If said guy was imaginary, how in the hell would Christianity have even begun in such a circumstance?
Brian: Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Sch!

Maybe the Christ existed because it was prophecied that he would exist? It's a lot like Santa Claus.
Mom: Santa is coming, sweety.
Little Billy: When?
Dad: (Dresses up like Santa Claus) HO. HO.
See?

The whole odds thing makes it seem like because something is improbable, it's not possible. Consider what the odds are of everyone on Earth being exactly where they are right now at this given moment. Not that can work it out, but something like :
(5.15x10^15)!/(5.15x10^15 - 4 x 10^9)! : 1

The chances of everyone being exactly where they are right now is so small, one would think it was impossible, but considering everyone's gotta be somewhere, it had to happen. I would say the same kind of thought would apply to life.
So you pulled that number out of your hat? ;)

Nice, another thread created by a fundamentalist troll. It's always interesting to see how those orthodox religious type try to infect and dominate every place where they can get a foothold. You would almost begin to think that all Christians are like that, which is of course exactly what the fundie vermin wants.

But hey, it gave me a reason to rant. And a rant a day keeps the doctor away!

Maybe the Christ existed because it was prophecied that he would exist? It's a lot like Santa Claus.
Mom: Santa is coming, sweety.
Little Billy: When?
Dad: (Dresses up like Santa Claus) HO. HO.
See?
But.. but.. you ignore the fact that Dad *is* Santa Claus.

The prophecy is fulfilled, every Christmas. Without fail.

Both Josephus and Tacitus mention him, IIRC. Moreover, if you seriously want to argue that Jesus never lived, then you are going to have to explain how a Jewish sect suddenly sprang up in Jerusalem where the central figure was a guy who had just recently and very publicly been executed. If said guy was imaginary, how in the hell would Christianity have even begun in such a circumstance?
Josephus didn't write about him. Someone in the 4th century forged a passage into Josehpus' works. It is well known by now and not used by most knowledgable people as evidence of the existence of Jesus.
Tacitus doesen't mention him. Tactius mentions his followers.

The jewish sect likely sprung up because the jews were an oppressed people at the time and a saviour would give them some hope of deliverance from the roman oppression. Moreover, the Jesus myth bears incredible similarity to the Mithras myth which was popular among the romans and perhaps transmitted to the jews who combined it with their mythology, forming a new version.

So you pulled that number out of your hat? ;)

Well, I did a quick search to find the surface area of the Earth, guessed at the population of the Earth being 4 billion, and figured to keep things simple, everyone can occupy 1 square meter. Then it's just a matter of trying to figure out what 5.1 x10^ 14 P 4 x 10^9 is.

Yeah, it's quick and sloppy, but +/- a couple of zeroes here and there isn't going to change things much.

Ok, I tried to work it out and it's going to be something like 10 ^(87 x 10^9) :1

Well, I did a quick search to find the surface area of the Earth, guessed at the population of the Earth being 4 billion, and figured to keep things simple, everyone can occupy 1 square meter. Then it's just a matter of trying to figure out what 5.1 x10^ 14 P 4 x 10^9 is.

Yeah, it's quick and sloppy, but +/- a couple of zeroes here and there isn't going to change things much.
LOL!

*is intimidated by smarts* ;)

Josephus didn't write about him. Someone in the 4th century forged a passage into Josehpus' works. It is well known by now and not used by most knowledgable people as evidence of the existence of Jesus.
Tacitus doesen't mention him. Tactius mentions his followers.

The jewish sect likely sprung up because the jews were an oppressed people at the time and a saviour would give them some hope of deliverance from the roman oppression. Moreover, the Jesus myth bears incredible similarity to the Mithras myth which was popular among the romans and perhaps transmitted to the jews who combined it with their mythology, forming a new version.

It is, perhaps, worth noting (although, apparently, all these people who 'reference' Josephus have never READ Josephus) that there ARE 3 other 'messiahs' described by Josephus: Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas, and Benjamin the Egyptian. All three were crucified by the Romans. All three lived and died before our earliest 'gospels' were written.

No, the assertion that there probably aren't 1 X 10^40,000 planets in the universe is almost certainly correct. It's just that that number is incredibly, digustingly, mind-bogglingly high.

But, and this is very important, if you consider every chance for a chemical reaction on every planet over the course of 15 billion years, then you might approcach or surpass that number.

Clarification time:
The theory of evolution and natural selection says that all life evolved from some common ancestor and that some branches of the family tree did better than others.
It does NOT say that God wasn't involved, it merely makes no assertions on the subject since there is no evidence either way, nor could there be by the very nature of God if it exists. Nor does it hypothesize on how the first common ancestor came about.
There are plenty of other scientific hypotheses such as from asteriods; from sulfates near thermal vents undergoing strange reactions to become organic that worked b/c of the heat, pressure and chemical coming out of the vents; and of course the Urey-Miller hypothesis. These aren't a part of the theory of evolution.

But.. but.. you ignore the fact that Dad *is* Santa Claus.

The prophecy is fulfilled, every Christmas. Without fail.
So, that was your dad breaking into my house??
Tell him I'm sorry about that knee injury I gave him...

It is, perhaps, worth noting (although, apparently, all these people who 'reference' Josephus have never READ Josephus) that there ARE 3 other 'messiahs' described by Josephus: Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas, and Benjamin the Egyptian. All three were crucified by the Romans. All three lived and died before our earliest 'gospels' were written.
I think it's a shame Benjamin the Egyptian didn't catch on. It almost rhymes. :)

You only think this disproves the theory because you really don't understand what the big bang theory is about.

I never said that it does - quite the contrary. I understand very well what the big bang is. Your patronizing attitude shows that you don't understand what I'm saying.

The big bang isn't so much of an expolsion as an expansion. Spacetime itself is expanding (not at the speed of light either... I don't know where you got that idea) matter is not being thrown out from an epicentre, that's not even in the theory.

Galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. Current thought holds that this is from the big bang. This accounts for the red dopler shift on the other side of the universe. When infinite energy is released, accelerating the entire universe to the speed of light, then you're talking about an explosion.

So how about you learn about the damn theory to start with before you go about spouting off your misconceptions and saying that the theory is wrong for reasons it isn't just because you fail to understand it.

Once again "I'm smarter than you, so shut up!" Your attitude comes across loud and clear: anyone who challenges orthodoxy is sent to the tribunal. Your ad hominim attacks show that you're in the box seats on the 50 yeard line for the orthodox team. Your conservative bent is disheartening.

Furthermore, the big bang is not part of the theory of evolution and neither theory preculdes the existence of a deity.

I never said it was. Have you always had this reading comprehension problem?

God is irrelevant to science.

No, religion is irrelevant to science.

Uh... yes there has. Also, aboigenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Try again.

Evolutionists hold that it is - part of the entire continuum. If there was no abiogenesis, then there was no evolution, unless there was exoplanetary "seeding" of the young planet by meteors, etc. So you accept that life has an exoterrestrial origin?


The scientific community does ask questions... and the scientific community never accepts these things as factual, the whole premise of science is to test these theories until they either fail them and are eliminated or succeed and are further confirmed.
Name a scientist who is questioning orthodoxy and I'll show you a scientist who is branded as "out of the mainstream." They will have to pump gas if they're going to put food on the table - they'll never get a job in science.

Evolution and the big bang have both been tested thorughly and have succeeded thus far, with some minor tinkering to the theories, of course.

No one would ever publicly say "The big bang has major problems - we need to look elsewhere." It does have large, unanswered questions - least of all is neither has been duplicated or observed.

Evolutionists hold that it is - part of the entire continuum. If there was no abiogenesis, then there was no evolution, unless there was exoplanetary "seeding" of the young planet by meteors, etc. So you accept that life has an exoterrestrial origin?

No no no no. Haven't you seen that every single person who is arguing on the side of evolution considers abiogenesis to be a completely seperate theory? No one who has been given a sufficient education in science thinks that they are the same or that one proves or disprioves the other.

Geez, sometimes I despair about the reading comprehension of those who basically make shit up to prove their point, as you just did by stating the opposite of what is the case in this thread and every other thread about evolution-creation-abiogenesis-big bang.

If you know ANYTHING about science, you know enough to keep abiogenesis and evolution and the big bang seperate...precisely because they are completely different phenomena.

I never said that it does - quite the contrary. I understand very well what the big bang is. Your patronizing attitude shows that you don't understand what I'm saying.
No, you really don't understand what I'm saying. Your description of the big bang as an explosion is a poor one. We do not expect to see a ring of galaxies with a big area of empty space in the middle in the current theory, unlike your suggestion that we should.

Galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. Current thought holds that this is from the big bang. This accounts for the red dopler shift on the other side of the universe. When infinite energy is released, accelerating the entire universe to the speed of light, then you're talking about an explosion.
Most galaxies are not moving away from us at the speed of light, only the ones that are really really far away do this. The speed at which galaxies retreat from our view is related to the distance in a forumla: v=Hd where H is hubble's constant.
The red doppler shift is because the galaxies are moving away at all. They do not have to move at the speed of light in order for this to happen.
The big bang is not an explosion in space, it is an expansion of space. It's like blowing up a balloon, not blowing up a hand grenade.

Once again "I'm smarter than you, so shut up!" Your attitude comes across loud and clear: anyone who challenges orthodoxy is sent to the tribunal. Your ad hominim attacks show that you're in the box seats on the 50 yeard line for the orthodox team. Your conservative bent is disheartening.
My conservative bent?!
Wow, you haven't been here long, have you?
I am not telling you to shut up, I'm saying that I do know more about this subject than you, I'm studying astrophysics, I should hope that I know more than the average layman on the subject. All I'm saying is that you should learn about the theory and understand it properly before you go about making false statements about what we should be observing as a result of the theory. You're not making "unorthodox" statements, you're making false ones based on poor understanding. There is a world of difference.

No, religion is irrelevant to science.
Ok, I believe I said that... god and religion and the supernatural are all irrelevant to science.

Evolutionists hold that it is - part of the entire continuum. If there was no abiogenesis, then there was no evolution, unless there was exoplanetary "seeding" of the young planet by meteors, etc. So you accept that life has an exoterrestrial origin?
The theory of evolution states that life evolved, i.e. that life changed over the time it has existed on this planet. The theory of evolution is not concerned with how life got its start here, that is abiogenesis.
Also, I don't really know any "evolutionists" would you care to define this term?

Name a scientist who is questioning orthodoxy and I'll show you a scientist who is branded as "out of the mainstream." They will have to pump gas if they're going to put food on the table - they'll never get a job in science.
The whole endeavour of science is about questioning our current understanding of the universe.
Right now, we have a probe orbiting our planet testing general relativity. If the test shows that there is no general relativistic effect, then that whole theory will be abandoned. If you know anything about physics, you will know how huge the theory of relativity is, it is one of the two major theories in physics. It doesn't get much bigger than possibly debunking GR.
And yet these men are in the mainstream of science.

No one would ever publicly say "The big bang has major problems - we need to look elsewhere." It does have large, unanswered questions - least of all is neither has been duplicated or observed.
It doesn't really have the sorts of questions left unanswered that you're asking.

Josephus didn't write about him. Someone in the 4th century forged a passage into Josehpus' works.

Citation, please?

The jewish sect likely sprung up because the jews were an oppressed people at the time and a saviour would give them some hope of deliverance from the roman oppression. Moreover, the Jesus myth bears incredible similarity to the Mithras myth which was popular among the romans and perhaps transmitted to the jews who combined it with their mythology, forming a new version.

Except, this had been fortold for 3000 years. Likely the Romans got it from the Hebrews.

Citation, please?

Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate.
bullet Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage "appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

Except, this had been fortold for 3000 years. Likely the Romans got it from the Hebrews.
Except that the Romans got this from the Persians, who told of Mithras' existence and prophesies for his existence long before the jews prophesied Jesus' coming. (By the way, there's no evidence the Hebrews were monotheistic 3000 years ago, they seemed to be polytheistic for much of their history, until Babylonian captivity)

No no no no. Haven't you seen that every single person who is arguing on the side of evolution considers abiogenesis to be a completely seperate theory? No one who has been given a sufficient education in science thinks that they are the same or that one proves or disprioves the other.

Didn't say that, either.

If you know ANYTHING about science, you know enough to keep abiogenesis and evolution and the big bang seperate...precisely because they are completely different phenomena.

Didn't say that they were linked at the hip. Not at all. You're reading into things that aren't there. I was only addressing the subjects that were mentioned by both sides of the argument - remember that one? Do evolutionists need more faith than creationists?

My whole premise is that both sides are walking in lock-step within their own sphere. I kept the arguments basic because I think there's some low IQs on both sides.

I'm studying astrophysics

When you get a degree, then we'll talk. ;)

When you get a degree, then we'll talk. ;)
lol.

Yeah, I see, so the person who can't even understand the basic principle behind the big bang is now getting picky on the level of education of the person who obviously understands it better than he does. :rolleyes: You have to be a troll or joking.

Also, I don't really know any "evolutionists" would you care to define this term?

Same usage as religionist. About the same . . .

Same usage as religionist. About the same . . .
I've never heard that term either. If you're going to invent words, you have to define them.

I am an evolutionist. Darwin rode in on a big ark called the Beagle from the land of Galapagos and crucified Jesus. Then he made shit evolve and stuff.

lol.

Yeah, I see, so the person who can't even understand the basic principle behind the big bang is now getting picky on the level of education of the person who obviously understands it better than he does. :rolleyes: You have to be a troll or joking.

I was joking.

OK then, why don't we discuss some of the problems with the Big Bang theory? You begin, grasshopper.

I am an evolutionist. Darwin rode in on a big ark called the Beagle from the land of Galapagos and crucified Jesus. Then he made shit evolve and stuff.
lol

Good one.

I am an evolutionist. Darwin rode in on a big ark called the Beagle from the land of Galapagos and crucified Jesus. Then he made shit evolve and stuff.

I think I found your troll . . .

I was joking.
Ok, that's good.

OK then, why don't we discuss some of the problems with the Big Bang theory? You begin, grasshopper.
Well, the only major problem I know of is the whole bit where we aren't sure what was going on in the first 10^-35th second after the birth of the universe.
A big issue here is a unified theory may be necessary to understand it, seeing as general relativity doesn't really work on such a small scale (as the universe would be extremely tiny at that point) and you can't really do much with quantum due to the large amount of matter concentrated into the area... but that's being worked on and some testing of how many dimensions the universe has (which is kinda an important detail for string theory) are going to be underway soon, the particle accelerators are being constructed. :D

I think I found your troll . . .
If you rub his stomach he grants you a wish.

Josephus didn't write about him. Someone in the 4th century forged a passage into Josehpus' works. It is well known by now and not used by most knowledgable people as evidence of the existence of Jesus.
Tacitus doesen't mention him. Tactius mentions his followers.

The jewish sect likely sprung up because the jews were an oppressed people at the time and a saviour would give them some hope of deliverance from the roman oppression. Moreover, the Jesus myth bears incredible similarity to the Mithras myth which was popular among the romans and perhaps transmitted to the jews who combined it with their mythology, forming a new version.

No, Josephus wrote about him. Part of that writing was later determined to be forged. That does not mean, however, that the whole of said work is therefore compromised. Specifically, Josephus mentions a man named Jesus who was called Christ by his followers, and that part is fairly clearly Josephus' writing, and is purely descriptive in nature. It is the part where Josephus seems to wholeheartedly endorse Christian ethos shortly thereafter that scholars have called into question.

As for the Mithras myth, I'm not sure how that proves your point. Richard Nixon has a great many similarities to MacBeth, but that's hardly proof that Richard Nixon is a myth.

The simple fact is that yes, there were many wandering prophets in that time period. Most prophets died either at the hands of the Romans or the Jews, because they were making claims that directly subverted the power of the Jewish Pharisee (cleric) and Sadducee (governmental) classes, or the Roman Empire. For most of those priests, it also meant the death of their particular brand of religion. None of this in any way says anything for or against the existence of Jesus: this could all be true and Jesus could or could not have existed.

What does strike me as difficult to believe is that, in light of the fact that 1) early Christian-Jews were presenting views that directly contradicted and subverted the power of the Sadducee and Pharisee class, and 2) that the Christian-Jews were actively promoting their particular faith in Jerusalem itself mere months after Jesus' supposed death, you don't see one person among the Sadducee or Pharisee classes saying what anyone would in their circumstance: namely, that we didn't do anything to this Jesus fellow because Jesus never existed. You don't see one person make the claim that should have been the first thing to come out of their mouths, and the thing that would have been most damning to the early Christian movement. Instead, you see people who were in the city when Jesus rode in on Palm Sunday actively converting to the faith. You further see Josephus talking about one group of Jews believing that Jesus is the son of God, and another denying it, which suggests that there was a debate on Jesus' nature at the time, not his existence.

Really, the reason why this is the case should be pretty obvious: if I've seen John Kerry in my life (which I have), then I don't need a historian writing down "There was a man named John Kerry, and he ran for president", because my own eyes told me that. Instead, especially in areas where parchment is scarce, I write down either what he said (which the Christians did), or when my memory is fading and most people don't remember the good ol' days, I write down years later that "There was a man who ran for President way back when named John Kerry." Incidentally enough, this is what Josephus did.

So really, I'd say that your argument doesn't hold water.

Ok, that's good.


Well, the only major problem I know of is the whole bit where we aren't sure what was going on in the first 10^-35th second after the birth of the universe.
A big issue here is a unified theory may be necessary to understand it, seeing as general relativity doesn't really work on such a small scale (as the universe would be extremely tiny at that point) and you can't really do much with quantum due to the large amount of matter concentrated into the area... but that's being worked on and some testing of how many dimensions the universe has (which is kinda an important detail for string theory) are going to be underway soon, the particle accelerators are being constructed. :D
I read some of the more user friendly stuff by Hawking and Michio Kaku and I have a hard time with it. The ideas behind what some of these people are doing are amazing to me, though.
I've been trying to figure out this site, I think it might be something along the lines of what you're talking about.
http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/

I read some of the more user friendly stuff by Hawking and Michio Kaku and I have a hard time with it. The ideas behind what some of these people are doing are amazing to me, though.
I've been trying to figure out this site, I think it might be something along the lines of what you're talking about.
http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/
I can't find where that is, it seems like it's something similar, but the project I've heard of is still under construction (or I thought it was) and is located in Switerland.
They're doing the same sort of thing though. :D

And yeah, some of the concepts are kinda tough, it's sad that approaching the end of an undergraduate degree I feel that I know so much less than when I started.

Didn't say that they were linked at the hip. Not at all. You're reading into things that aren't there. I was only addressing the subjects that were mentioned by both sides of the argument - remember that one? Do evolutionists need more faith than creationists?


Evolutionists hold that it is - part of the entire continuum. If there was no abiogenesis, then there was no evolution, unless there was exoplanetary "seeding" of the young planet by meteors, etc. So you accept that life has an exoterrestrial origin?

I didn't say that YOU said they were linked at the hip, I said that "Evolutionists" don't believe they are linked at the hip, unless they are woefully ignorant. You are the one who asserted that "Evolutionists" think they are linked at the hip, and I wanted to make sure that you were aware that this is simply not true.

I can't find where that is, it seems like it's something similar, but the project I've heard of is still under construction (or I thought it was) and is located in Switerland.
They're doing the same sort of thing though. :D

And yeah, some of the concepts are kinda tough, it's sad that approaching the end of an undergraduate degree I feel that I know so much less than when I started.
Isn't that the CERN?

Well, the only major problem I know of is the whole bit where we aren't sure what was going on in the first 10^-35th second after the birth of the universe.

Interesting. I would have started with the horizon problem, but that's why you subscribe to the inflation theory.

A big issue here is a unified theory may be necessary to understand it, seeing as general relativity doesn't really work on such a small scale (as the universe would be extremely tiny at that point) and you can't really do much with quantum due to the large amount of matter concentrated into the area... but that's being worked on and some testing of how many dimensions the universe has (which is kinda an important detail for string theory) are going to be underway soon, the particle accelerators are being constructed. :D

Agreed - until we have the unified theory, we are really guessing on several levels. There are so many things in the universe that don't add up, especially the first particles of seconds of existence. I've heard many estimates of the number of dimensions that there may be. You're right, until we construct the partical accelerators that are powerful enough, we have little chance of finding out what the real deal is.

No, Josephus wrote about him. Part of that writing was later determined to be forged. That does not mean, however, that the whole of said work is therefore compromised. Specifically, Josephus mentions a man named Jesus who was called Christ by his followers, and that part is fairly clearly Josephus' writing, and is purely descriptive in nature. It is the part where Josephus seems to wholeheartedly endorse Christian ethos shortly thereafter that scholars have called into question.
Well, for one thing I never claimed to be a historian or an expert on such matters, so I do my own research not by reading the actual texts in their original language, but by looking up what those who have done the actual first hand research have written. And I have never read anyone saying any of this. Perhaps you could provide me with a link?

As for the Mithras myth, I'm not sure how that proves your point. Richard Nixon has a great many similarities to MacBeth, but that's hardly proof that Richard Nixon is a myth.
So, the fact that both their births are supposed to be celebrated on the same day, they were both supposed to have been cricufied on a hill with one other man on either side, born to virgins, having shepherds visit them at their birth, having 12 followers et c et c. is just a coincidence? Their lives were described to be nearly identical, except that the Mithras myth was started more than 500 years before the Jesus one.

What does strike me as difficult to believe is that, in light of the fact that 1) early Christian-Jews were presenting views that directly contradicted and subverted the power of the Sadducee and Pharisee class, and 2) that the Christian-Jews were actively promoting their particular faith in Jerusalem itself mere months after Jesus' supposed death, you don't see one person among the Sadducee or Pharisee classes saying what anyone would in their circumstance: namely, that we didn't do anything to this Jesus fellow because Jesus never existed. You don't see one person make the claim that should have been the first thing to come out of their mouths, and the thing that would have been most damning to the early Christian movement. Instead, you see people who were in the city when Jesus rode in on Palm Sunday actively converting to the faith. You further see Josephus talking about one group of Jews believing that Jesus is the son of God, and another denying it, which suggests that there was a debate on Jesus' nature at the time, not his existence.
You know what strikes me as odd? The fact that none of his followers wrote a damn thing down until at minimum 40 years after his death and that they, despite spending so much time with him, managed to contradict each other in the details of their time spent together and that they all really seemed to copy the one guy with different details thrown in for good measure.
It also strikes me as odd that the romans, who kept excellent records, dont' have a single execution order for a Jesus of Nazareth.

Really, the reason why this is the case should be pretty obvious: if I've seen John Kerry in my life (which I have), then I don't need a historian writing down "There was a man named John Kerry, and he ran for president", because my own eyes told me that. Instead, especially in areas where parchment is scarce, I write down either what he said (which the Christians did), or when my memory is fading and most people don't remember the good ol' days, I write down years later that "There was a man who ran for President way back when named John Kerry." Incidentally enough, this is what Josephus did.

So really, I'd say that your argument doesn't hold water.
Josephus wasn't born until 33AD, he wasn't even a contemporary... seeing as Jesus was supposed to have been executed around 30AD...
It also seemed that he was recording things as they happened, as well as things that had happened long ago...

How can any of you POSSIBLY believe in Evolution?? All science is against it; it is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most basic physical truths about our universe. Theologians who have extensively studied the Bible their entire lives have determined that the age of this world, mankind, and the universe is 4000 years old. Some chemistry trick of deceptive "carbon dating" lies is not going to erode the life's work of these fine men. If you want solid, empirical PROOF that the earth isn't as old as the elitist liberals say it is, have you ever heard of the Malachite Man (http://www.godhatesfags.com)? It was a human fossil found RIGHT NEXT TO DINOSAUR FOSSILS! It obviously proves that dinosaur's can't be 'millions of years old' like the uneducated blue-state idiots tell themselves. If you are a True Christian, I urge you to do the work of Jesus and direct every atheist you know to the website linked to above. Their souls depend on it!

Isn't that the CERN?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
^It might be this, the LHC.

I'm terrible with remembering little specific details. :p

it is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most basic physical truths about our universe.
No, it isn't. Please learn about thermodynamics so you can stop making such silly statements.

Theologians who have extensively studied the Bible their entire lives have determined that the age of this world, mankind, and the universe is 4000 years old. Some chemistry trick of deceptive "carbon dating" lies is not going to erode the life's work of these fine men.
Except that Carbon dating isn't the only sort of radiological dating method that indicates the earth is more than 4000 years old. Also, if you're going with a strict biblical account, the world is at least 6000 years old.

If you want solid, empirical PROOF that the earth isn't as old as the elitist liberals say it is, have you ever heard of the Malachite Man (http://www.godhatesfags.com)? It was a human fossil found RIGHT NEXT TO DINOSAUR FOSSILS! It obviously proves that dinosaur's can't be 'millions of years old' like the uneducated blue-state idiots tell themselves.
Wow, flaming and a link to a site I'm pretty sure isn't even allowed anymore.

If you are a True Christian, I urge you to do the work of Jesus and direct every atheist you know to the website linked to above. Their souls depend on it!
You ended your last sentence early... you left off "...for a good laugh!"

Interesting. I would have started with the horizon problem, but that's why you subscribe to the inflation theory.

Agreed - until we have the unified theory, we are really guessing on several levels. There are so many things in the universe that don't add up, especially the first particles of seconds of existence. I've heard many estimates of the number of dimensions that there may be. You're right, until we construct the partical accelerators that are powerful enough, we have little chance of finding out what the real deal is.
You know, for someone who is now appearing so intelligent, I have to ask what was up with the first couple posts I reponded to? I've never heard anyone describe the big bang as an explosion where we should have a big void in the centre of a shell if they had a decent understanding or any knowledge of cosmology. Were you just trying to get a response or playing devil's advocate?

How can any of you POSSIBLY believe in Evolution?? All science is against it; it is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most basic physical truths about our universe. Theologians who have extensively studied the Bible their entire lives have determined that the age of this world, mankind, and the universe is 4000 years old. Some chemistry trick of deceptive "carbon dating" lies is not going to erode the life's work of these fine men. If you want solid, empirical PROOF that the earth isn't as old as the elitist liberals say it is, have you ever heard of the Malachite Man (http://www.godhatesfags.com)? It was a human fossil found RIGHT NEXT TO DINOSAUR FOSSILS! It obviously proves that dinosaur's can't be 'millions of years old' like the uneducated blue-state idiots tell themselves. If you are a True Christian, I urge you to do the work of Jesus and direct every atheist you know to the website linked to above. Their souls depend on it!
http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm

The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added (Kuban 1998).


All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found fifteen feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand. They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down). The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic (Kuban 1998).


The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information that might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC111.html

Malachite Man: more recently, creationist Don Patton has claimed that the discovery of a number of malachite-encrusted skeletons between 1990 and 1996 is evidence that humans existed long before they were supposed to. It turned out that some of the photos of Malachite Man on his website were identical to photos that were published of the Moab Man skeletons in the February 1975 issue of Desert Magazine. (For more information, visit The Life and Death of Malachite Man, by Glen Kuban.) Since then, the website has been changed to distinguish between the two finds. There is as yet no published material on these skeletons, but the fact that they were found in the same copper mine as the Moab Man skeletons suggests that they are also recent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#malachite

This is the worst waste of time I've ever forced myself through...

How can any of you POSSIBLY believe in Evolution?? All science is against it; it is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most basic physical truths about our universe.

I am no fan of evolution, but you can't raise entropy as proof of evolution not working and turn around (below) and say that the earth is only 4000 years old.

Theologians who have extensively studied the Bible their entire lives have determined that the age of this world, mankind, and the universe is 4000 years old.

Theology and theologians have changed truth for the past 2000 years. They teach the philosophies of men, mingled with scriptures.

Some chemistry trick of deceptive "carbon dating" lies is not going to erode the life's work of these fine men.

"These fine men?" They are lying to you. They are religionists who are in it only for the money. Do you think they do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Find a religion that doesn't allow a paid clergy and you might have something. (BTW, there actually IS a religion like that)

If you want solid, empirical PROOF that the earth isn't as old as the elitist liberals say it is, have you ever heard of the Malachite Man (http://www.godhatesfags.com)? It was a human fossil found RIGHT NEXT TO DINOSAUR FOSSILS! It obviously proves that dinosaur's can't be 'millions of years old' like the uneducated blue-state idiots tell themselves. If you are a True Christian, I urge you to do the work of Jesus and direct every atheist you know to the website linked to above. Their souls depend on it!

The above link is to a site called God Hates Fags

AHA! Now I know where you're coming from! Your "prophet" is a hate monger. The correct doctrine is "God hates hatred." I will now ignore you and all of your bigoted, hate-filled, Satanic teachings.

AHA! Now I know where you're coming from! Your "prophet" is a hate monger. The correct doctrine is "God hates hatred." I will now ignore you and all of your bigoted, hate-filled, Satanic teachings.
Damn...

Oh my god ... you even visited the link, and still thought my post was serious. Fred Phelps sure has a lot to say about creationism :rolleyes: . I think I have just lost my faith in humanity.

Oh my god ... you even visited the link, and still thought my post was serious. Fred Phelps sure has a lot to say about creationism :rolleyes: . I think I have just lost my faith in humanity.
I didn't visit your link. When I quoted you in response I saw the url and knew not to bother.

Oh my god ... you even visited the link, and still thought my post was serious. Fred Phelps sure has a lot to say about creationism :rolleyes: . I think I have just lost my faith in humanity.
Now, I can stop crying.

Oh my god ... you even visited the link, and still thought my post was serious. Fred Phelps sure has a lot to say about creationism :rolleyes: . I think I have just lost my faith in humanity.

The problem is that on this site, we occasionally have people who actually do hate "fags" "jews" and/or "chihuahua/dachshund half-breeds." Therefore the old sarcasm detectors get desensitized.

Keep trying, once you get a reputation for sarcasm, more people will appreciate your humor, assuming you come up with something original and fresh (Phelp's website, in these circles, is about as fresh as a pickled herring's genitalia.)

I once has a post that I ended with "This is sarcasm," taken seriously.

Hello, people...what do fellow atheists think about this scary newspaper clipping I found??

Chandra Wickramsinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramsinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: 'I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.' He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been 'strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation'. He concludes: 'The only logical answer to life is creation - and not random accidental shuffling' (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard p. 298.)

By random accidental shuffling I think he means molecules going round and round and eventually happening to form life.

odds hold no ground, for we are here, and so it must have been that tiny chance. it's probably better to think of it this way: if we weren't here, we wouldn't be wondering over that, so those other many many chances that we wouldn't be here don't matter.

Hello, people...what do fellow atheists think about this scary newspaper clipping I found??

Chandra Wickramsinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramsinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: 'I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.' He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been 'strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation'. He concludes: 'The only logical answer to life is creation - and not random accidental shuffling' (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard p. 298.)

By random accidental shuffling I think he means molecules going round and round and eventually happening to form life.

That is the chance of life starting on earth. Considering the number of stars in the universe as a whole and a large number will have planets, now add up the probability of life starting anywhere in the universe. This will massively increase the chance that life will form in the Universe and it just so happens that life has started on Earth.

You know, for someone who is now appearing so intelligent, I have to ask what was up with the first couple posts I reponded to? I've never heard anyone describe the big bang as an explosion where we should have a big void in the centre of a shell if they had a decent understanding or any knowledge of cosmology. Were you just trying to get a response or playing devil's advocate?

I got pretty good grades.

The inflation theory was brought in when the size of the universe was discovered to be bigger than the speed of light could accomodate. It wasn't postulated beforehand, only after the current theory couldn't account for what was being observed. That is what bothers me.

Now, when another problem comes up, another theory will be thought up to account for it. It probably won't be extant at the time. In other words, we don't really know what happened or how it happened. As I said before, we're guessing. Wait till CERN gets off the ground. All hell is going to break loose in the physics and cosmology communities. A whole new set of theories will have to be brought online. It'll be a whole new ballgame.

I never play devil's advocate. It's too much fun just to show people that knowledge isn't a done deal and we're not as smart as we think.

Yeah, I believe in microevolution but NOT MACROEVOLUTION, because I believe that humans were created seperately from animals/fish/birds/plants. If macroevolution was right, why have we not discovered any transitional fossils in these hundreds of years we've been digging? I mean, animals with wings not yet strong enought to fly with yet, and that sort of thing.
What like flightless birds or something?

Many Christians are struck by the similarity between the Big Bang theory and Bible:

Genesis 1:1-5

First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all up and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! The cosmos in chaos: no shape, no form, no function - just darkness...total. And floating above it all, God's Holy Spirit, ready for action. Day one: Then God's voice booms out 'Lights!' and, from nowherem light floods the skies and 'night' is swept off the scene. God gives it the big thumbs up, calls it 'day'.
There are creation stories that (so far as I can see) are a better match to 'big bang' theory and which also match up figuritively to evolutionary theory. Is that supposed to somehow be significant with regards to the likely truth of any particular creation story?

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, teeny bit further away we'd freeze.
Huh? Are you suggesting the planet is the way it is so that we can exist, rather than us existing as we do because of the planet being as it is?

Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe?
Er, no, I have thought about the fact of things existing for no apparent reason.

It makes no less sense than suggesting some 'pre-time existing' creator with the ability to create time, the earth, all life forms etc just magically happening to exist for no reason other than to invent human beings with free will which it then proceeds to demand we not use, whilst simultaneously blaming us for being imperfect despite the fact that as designer and creator that would be the magical creator's doing...

What like flightless birds or something?


There are creation stories that (so far as I can see) are a better match to 'big bang' theory and which also match up figuritively to evolutionary theory. Is that supposed to somehow be significant with regards to the likely truth of any particular creation story?


Huh? Are you suggesting the planet is the way it is so that we can exist, rather than us existing as we do because of the planet being as it is?


Er, no, I have thought about the fact of things existing for no apparent reason.

It makes no less sense than suggesting some 'pre-time existing' creator with the ability to create time, the earth, all life forms etc just magically happening to exist for no reason other than to invent human beings with free will which it then proceeds to demand we not use, whilst simultaneously blaming us for being imperfect despite the fact that as designer and creator that would be the magical creator's doing...

To put it mildly, "zing!"

It makes no less sense than suggesting some 'pre-time existing' creator with the ability to create time, the earth, all life forms etc just magically happening to exist for no reason other than to invent human beings with free will which it then proceeds to demand we not use, whilst simultaneously blaming us for being imperfect despite the fact that as designer and creator that would be the magical creator's doing...

If you're going to use a religious argument, you need to read more to know what you're talking about. If you don't understand the concepts, then don't try to refute them. Try reading rather than spewing out what you hear around the water cooler.

Hardly a "zing". Of course, the person you were answering isn't exactly well read, either.

The inflation theory was brought in when the size of the universe was discovered to be bigger than the speed of light could accomodate. It wasn't postulated beforehand, only after the current theory couldn't account for what was being observed. That is what bothers me.
Why would that bother you? It's science. If the theory doesn't account for the observations then you must modify or eliminate the theory. In this case, the big bang was modified in a way that made it match the observations.

I think it's a shame Benjamin the Egyptian didn't catch on. It almost rhymes. :)

And it sounds cool, too... I might join a church that had Benjamin the Egyptian as it's Crucified Messiah... :)

Evolutionists hold that it is - part of the entire continuum.

Show a source.

Show me where an 'evolutionist' has made evolution and abiogenesis a single artifact?

It's called 'evolution' because it deals with the principles of how things 'evolve'. It cares not a jot where they came from.

Why would that bother you? It's science. If the theory doesn't account for the observations then you must modify or eliminate the theory. In this case, the big bang was modified in a way that made it match the observations.

Science is a great thing. But it moves slowly on the quest for truth. I want to know what happened and why, not someone's guess and a moving target. But that's just my nature. All knowledge is important. To exclude something just because it appears to be impossible is not wise.

I believe in the imperacle, not just the theoretical. (spelling is not my strong suit)

Science is a great thing. But it moves slowly on the quest for truth. I want to know what happened and why, not someone's guess and a moving target. But that's just my nature. All knowledge is important. To exclude something just because it appears to be impossible is not wise.

I believe in the imperacle, not just the theoretical. (spelling is not my strong suit)

Name something that moves towards truth faster. If you've found a way to improve the scientific method, let's hear it.

Show a source.

Show me where an 'evolutionist' has made evolution and abiogenesis a single artifact?

It's called 'evolution' because it deals with the principles of how things 'evolve'. It cares not a jot where they came from.

Agreed, I have never heard a scientist claim that abiogenesis and evolution were the same thing. Evolution is a theory for how things are the way they are now, abiogenesis is for how things started in the first place.

Myself, I accept evolution as much as I accept gravity (which is itself, after all, also "only a theory"), but I don't know about abiogenesis.

Show a source.

You are looking at it.

Show me where an 'evolutionist' has made evolution and abiogenesis a single artifact?

It is implied, not stated.

It's called 'evolution' because it deals with the principles of how things 'evolve'. It cares not a jot where they came from.

At which point does that jot occur? Each species has a preceding species. At which point does evolution not care about the previous generation?

Science is a great thing. But it moves slowly on the quest for truth. I want to know what happened and why, not someone's guess and a moving target. But that's just my nature. All knowledge is important. To exclude something just because it appears to be impossible is not wise.

I believe in the imperacle, not just the theoretical. (spelling is not my strong suit)

If you want answers, and now, you are looking in the wrong place... only religion can explain everything, and on short order.

Science has always dealt with degrees of uncertainty... and requires resolve to accept that we will likely NEVER know EVERYTHING... much less, in our lifetime.

You are looking at it.


Does these mean you consider your opinion to be an objective proof? Or did you just not HAVE a source?

The other alternative, of course, is that you don't understand the need for substantive evidence.... I'd prefer to believe that is not the case...


It is implied, not stated.


I don't believe you. In many years of science, I've never encountered the claim that abiogenesis is needed for evolution, or that the one requires the other. Without a source, you are wasting breath on hollow rhetoric.


At which point does that jot occur? Each species has a preceding species. At which point does evolution not care about the previous generation?

The point at which no entity 'evolves', according to a mechanism of 'evolution'. This really isn't all that hard to follow.

Agreed, I have never heard a scientist claim that abiogenesis and evolution were the same thing. Evolution is a theory for how things are the way they are now, abiogenesis is for how things started in the first place.

Myself, I accept evolution as much as I accept gravity (which is itself, after all, also "only a theory"), but I don't know about abiogenesis.

An excellent position.... accept as servicable those theories that seem to have sufficient evidence, and withhold judgement where the evidence doesn't convince you.

If you want answers, and now, you are looking in the wrong place... only religion can explain everything, and on short order.

Science has always dealt with degrees of uncertainty... and requires resolve to accept that we will likely NEVER know EVERYTHING... much less, in our lifetime.

I refuse to accept anything short of the knowledge of everything. I'll get a lot farther with the higher standard than if I accept the condept that man isn't capable of understanding the most complex knowledge. I believe that we most certainly are capable of understanding it all. We've never even come close to tapping our potential.

If you're going to use a religious argument, you need to read more to know what you're talking about.
When responding to a particular person's assertions (religious or otherwise) I can only read so much as they post.

If you don't understand the concepts, then don't try to refute them.
That's silly, in the first place if I dont understand a concept I may very well not even realise that I fail to understand it.

In the second place not all concepts are understandable, unless there some reason why incoherent concepts ought not to be responded to, then it makes no sense to suggest that in any case where one fails to understand 'how that could be' they ought not to respond in some manner (including refutation).

Try reading rather than spewing out what you hear around the water cooler.
That's also silly, I am responding to what I read right here in this thread, not something I heard around a water cooler...

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how my post indicated (to you) that I did not know what I was talking about, or what further reading I could have done of the poster (I was replying to)'s particular cosmological theory. Perhaps you've read the book...(in fact perhaps I have too, after all I couldnt know either way should such a book exist, given I only have the posters 'user-name', and it's probable that he/she would not use that when publishing a book)...

:) I got pretty good grades.

The inflation theory was brought in when the size of the universe was discovered to be bigger than the speed of light could accomodate. It wasn't postulated beforehand, only after the current theory couldn't account for what was being observed. That is what bothers me.

Now, when another problem comes up, another theory will be thought up to account for it. It probably won't be extant at the time. In other words, we don't really know what happened or how it happened. As I said before, we're guessing. Wait till CERN gets off the ground. All hell is going to break loose in the physics and cosmology communities. A whole new set of theories will have to be brought online. It'll be a whole new ballgame.

I never play devil's advocate. It's too much fun just to show people that knowledge isn't a done deal and we're not as smart as we think.


Ok. The problems with the big bang are: (sorry, physics guys will know this)

1. Flatness = why is the universe ever so slightly not flat?
2. Horizon problem as stated before
3. Relics problem = thories to explain early universe predict there had to be monopoles etc which we do not see today, WHERE did they go?
4. Lambda = cosmological constant is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than predicted. why is it just above zero and not zero?

Inflation solves the first 3 problems but actually makes the fourth problem even worse. It is nice to see other people are interested in physics and understand some of the problems it is trying to solve today.

Does these mean you consider your opinion to be an objective proof? Or did you just not HAVE a source?

No, just that my opinion is just as valid as yours. Perhaps it just has a few more years behind it.

The other alternative, of course, is that you don't understand the need for substantive evidence.... I'd prefer to believe that is not the case...

I believe it all the more. Evidence is everything.

I don't believe you. In many years of science, I've never encountered the claim that abiogenesis is needed for evolution, or that the one requires the other. Without a source, you are wasting breath on hollow rhetoric.

As you wish. But really, it just takes a little bit of a paradigm shift; then you can see it.

The point at which no entity 'evolves', according to a mechanism of 'evolution'. This really isn't all that hard to follow.

What point is that? How many cells? Precellular? Self replicating protiens? The point must be defined. BTW, what is the current definition of "mechanism of evolution"?

No, Josephus wrote about him. Part of that writing was later determined to be forged. That does not mean, however, that the whole of said work is therefore compromised. Specifically, Josephus mentions a man named Jesus who was called Christ by his followers, and that part is fairly clearly Josephus' writing, and is purely descriptive in nature. It is the part where Josephus seems to wholeheartedly endorse Christian ethos shortly thereafter that scholars have called into question.

As for the Mithras myth, I'm not sure how that proves your point. Richard Nixon has a great many similarities to MacBeth, but that's hardly proof that Richard Nixon is a myth.

The simple fact is that yes, there were many wandering prophets in that time period. Most prophets died either at the hands of the Romans or the Jews, because they were making claims that directly subverted the power of the Jewish Pharisee (cleric) and Sadducee (governmental) classes, or the Roman Empire. For most of those priests, it also meant the death of their particular brand of religion. None of this in any way says anything for or against the existence of Jesus: this could all be true and Jesus could or could not have existed.

What does strike me as difficult to believe is that, in light of the fact that 1) early Christian-Jews were presenting views that directly contradicted and subverted the power of the Sadducee and Pharisee class, and 2) that the Christian-Jews were actively promoting their particular faith in Jerusalem itself mere months after Jesus' supposed death, you don't see one person among the Sadducee or Pharisee classes saying what anyone would in their circumstance: namely, that we didn't do anything to this Jesus fellow because Jesus never existed. You don't see one person make the claim that should have been the first thing to come out of their mouths, and the thing that would have been most damning to the early Christian movement. Instead, you see people who were in the city when Jesus rode in on Palm Sunday actively converting to the faith. You further see Josephus talking about one group of Jews believing that Jesus is the son of God, and another denying it, which suggests that there was a debate on Jesus' nature at the time, not his existence.

Really, the reason why this is the case should be pretty obvious: if I've seen John Kerry in my life (which I have), then I don't need a historian writing down "There was a man named John Kerry, and he ran for president", because my own eyes told me that. Instead, especially in areas where parchment is scarce, I write down either what he said (which the Christians did), or when my memory is fading and most people don't remember the good ol' days, I write down years later that "There was a man who ran for President way back when named John Kerry." Incidentally enough, this is what Josephus did.

So really, I'd say that your argument doesn't hold water.

We can 'check' the truth, to a certain extent, of Josephus - by looking at other sources that quote from him. Many of the Christians who, one would assume, SHOULD have quoted him, did not.... yet we have Arabic texts that did.... practically verbatim, in fact:

Agapios' "Kitab al-'Unwan"

"Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

All Josephus claimed, was that Jesus was 'called' Messiah... it does NOT say that Josephus' "Jesus" is the SAME "Jesus" that the Bible describes... or vouch for ANY of the details of the Biblical Jesus... EXCEPT that some of Jesus' followers BELIEVED he rose after death, and BELIEVED this made him the true Messiah.

Your Nixon analogy runs down on the fact that there is independent, contemporary corroboration of this 'Nixon' fellow. None such exists for the religious icon of the Christian faith.

I wonder where you get your 'evidence' about Pharisees and Saducees, and how they responded to this 'Christians'? As far as I can tell, you must be finding all your evidence in Josephus (not contemporary, and not always genuine), or the New Testament (certainly not independent... and mostly not contemporary, either).

Your last passage is confusing to me... are you saying we should be less rigourous about evidence we find, from times when paper was scarce? Josephus was NOT 'there'.... thus, ANY evidence we get from him MUST be at least hearsay.

If you're going to use a religious argument, you need to read more to know what you're talking about. If you don't understand the concepts, then don't try to refute them. Try reading rather than spewing out what you hear around the water cooler.

Hardly a "zing". Of course, the person you were answering isn't exactly well read, either.

If you're going to use a scientific argument, you need to read more to know what you're talking about. If you don't understand the concepts, then don't try to refute them. Try reading rather than spewing out what you hear around the water cooler.

Specifically, I am referring to your preposterous claim that the theories of abiogenesis and evolution are linked in any way other than the fact that they both deal with aspects of biology. Don't get so high and mighty with someone when you keep making this basic mistake even in the face of overwhelming criticism.

Zing indeed.

I refuse to accept anything short of the knowledge of everything. I'll get a lot farther with the higher standard than if I accept the condept that man isn't capable of understanding the most complex knowledge. I believe that we most certainly are capable of understanding it all. We've never even come close to tapping our potential.

No - you won't get further... you'll either be a dishonest scientist, or you'll be frustrated.

I didn't say anything about complexity... just that we can never know EVERYTHING. I wonder if you are familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Like I said, if you 'need' all the answers, science will only frustrate you, my friend. Even what we 'know' is subject to IMMEDIATE revision, at ANY moment.

No, just that my opinion is just as valid as yours. Perhaps it just has a few more years behind it.


How is it now a contest of opinions?

You stated (as fact):


"Evolutionists hold that it is - part of the entire continuum".


My 'opinion' (according to you) is: prove it.

I believe the common parlance is: "Put up, or shut up."


I believe it all the more. Evidence is everything.


So why do you refuse to give any? Pergaps because your argument is opinion, not supported by fact?


As you wish. But really, it just takes a little bit of a paradigm shift; then you can see it.


Yes. A paradigm shift. To a situation where bias is considered equal to evidence.


What point is that? How many cells? Precellular? Self replicating protiens? The point must be defined. BTW, what is the current definition of "mechanism of evolution"?

I'm not going to quibble semantics with you, my friend. Find a point where you are happy the entity qualifies as 'alive'. If, at this point, there is a form of selectivity in 'reproduction', you have a reasonable argument for evolution.

No - you won't get further... you'll either be a dishonest scientist, or you'll be frustrated.

I didn't say anything about complexity... just that we can never know EVERYTHING. I wonder if you are familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Quantum mechanics make my head hurt <g>. Yes I'm familiar with it but it's hard to pinpoint <lol>

Like I said, if you 'need' all the answers, science will only frustrate you, my friend. Even what we 'know' is subject to IMMEDIATE revision, at ANY moment.

That's only the goal. How far I get on the trip is up to me.

I like this, everyone left talking on this thread like science and are just arguing over small differences in their opinions and views :p . It makes a change to the normal debates found on threads on similar subjects.

Quantum mechanics make my head hurt <g>. Yes I'm familiar with it but it's hard to pinpoint <lol>



That's only the goal. How far I get on the trip is up to me.

If quantum mechanics makes your head hurt, how do you expect to meet your goal of knowing everything...especially since you seem to think opinion is as valid as evidence?

Quantum mechanics make my head hurt <g>. Yes I'm familiar with it but it's hard to pinpoint <lol>

That's only the goal. How far I get on the trip is up to me.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just one easy example of why we can never 'know' everything.... sometimes, you can't even be certain about two functions of the same entity (such as speed AND direction).

The goal should not be to know EVERYTHING... because it seems unlikely that such a thing could even be possible. Perhaps a better goal would be to know as much as possible? Our time IS finite.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just one easy example of why we can never 'know' everything.... sometimes, you can't even be certain about two functions of the same entity (such as speed AND direction).

The goal should not be to know EVERYTHING... because it seems unlikely that such a thing could even be possible. Perhaps a better goal would be to know as much as possible? Our time IS finite.

The goal is not to know everything but just understand everything. Not much difference but it becomes significant when QM is involved.

faith is a waste in itself. What's respectable about beleiving in something just to beleive it. regarding evidence is different than saying, "well, why not.?"

I hope i just made sense.

Thanks

How is it now a contest of opinions?

You stated (as fact):



My 'opinion' (according to you) is: prove it.

I believe the common parlance is: "Put up, or shut up."

So why do you refuse to give any? Pergaps because your argument is opinion, not supported by fact?

I cannot name a single evolutionary scientist who doesn't hold that abiogenesis is the answer to life on this planet.

Yes. A paradigm shift. To a situation where bias is considered equal to evidence.

No, just observing what is happening as a detached observer.

I'm not going to quibble semantics with you, my friend. Find a point where you are happy the entity qualifies as 'alive'. If, at this point, there is a form of selectivity in 'reproduction', you have a reasonable argument for evolution.

Fair enough. Didn't want to quibble, I wanted to know what you think. It is important to the discussion.

If quantum mechanics makes your head hurt, how do you expect to meet your goal of knowing everything...especially since you seem to think opinion is as valid as evidence?

It was a figure of speech. I do fine with QM. I was trying to lighten things up a bit.

Goodnight everyone, the discussion was fun to follow, especially after we got past the standard posts at the begining.

faith is a waste in itself. What's respectable about beleiving in something just to beleive it. regarding evidence is different than saying, "well, why not.?"

I hope i just made sense.

Thanks

It is only a waste if it cannot be tested. If it is tested and found to be true, then you are better off for the knowledge. If it cannot be tested then there is no point.

I cannot name a single evolutionary scientist who doesn't hold that abiogenesis is the answer to life on this planet.


Then you must not have encountered the theory that life arrived on this world, through contact with a 'contaminated' body... meteorite, etc.?

I've talked to people on this forum, who accept evolution, but think 'god' started it. Hell - the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, but holds that 'god' is the instigator.


No, just observing what is happening as a detached observer.


The detached observer deals in evidence... which we are still waiting for.


Fair enough. Didn't want to quibble, I wanted to know what you think. It is important to the discussion.

Okay. I like how polite you are. It is proof that it is possible to disagree, with civility.

Then you must not have encountered the theory that life arrived on this world, through contact with a 'contaminated' body... meteorite, etc.?

I've talked to people on this forum, who accept evolution, but think 'god' started it. Hell - the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, but holds that 'god' is the instigator.

As I said much earlier, they are theologians. They make things up as they go.

The detached observer deals in evidence... which we are still waiting for.

That's what I was talking about with the e. scientists not being willing to talk about anything except the current favorite. I think that you'll find that those who talk about contaminated objects are exobiologists. Most of them work in NASA related projects. When the Antarctic meteorite was found to have what appeared to be traces of exobiological artifacts, they were extatic. But then, even NASA moved in to get them to tone it down - even to the point that they've dropped any talk of it, except that the artifacts are only microscopic bubbles that may have been formed during entry warming. You will probably never hear anything like that out of NASA again in this generation.

Okay. I like how polite you are. It is proof that it is possible to disagree, with civility.

I try to be civil, except for evil types like the guy who was on here earlier trying to fill the discussion with hate. I have no use for them.

As I said much earlier, they are theologians. They make things up as they go.


And yet.... they can be scientists, who believe evolution does not equate to abiogenesis... which was what you were asking for?


That's what I was talking about with the e. scientists not being willing to talk about anything except the current favorite. I think that you'll find that those who talk about contaminated objects are exobiologists. Most of them work in NASA related projects. When the Antarctic meteorite was found to have what appeared to be traces of exobiological artifacts, they were extatic. But then, even NASA moved in to get them to tone it down - even to the point that they've dropped any talk of it, except that the artifacts are only microscopic bubbles that may have been formed during entry warming. You will probably never hear anything like that out of NASA again in this generation.


Actually, most of the scientists I know, fall into one of three groups:

1) Accept abiogenesis as most likely, but accept extra-terrestrial origins as very possible,

2) Accept extra-terrestrial origins as most likely, but accept abiogenesis as very possible,

3) Accept both as very possible, and accomodate not knowing,for sure, if one is more likely than the other.

These are often 'religious' persons... not ALL religious people believe that supernatural events are required.

Some of the other 'scientists' I know, of course, ascribe to more 'divine' origins... but still, most seem to accept evolution... with or without abiogenesis.


I try to be civil, except for evil types like the guy who was on here earlier trying to fill the discussion with hate. I have no use for them.

Your civility IS appreciated.

Gotta go. It's past my bedtime and I degenerate into mush in a few minutes. Thx to all for the great discussion. I appreciate the intelligent group.

J.

I got pretty good grades.

The inflation theory was brought in when the size of the universe was discovered to be bigger than the speed of light could accomodate. It wasn't postulated beforehand, only after the current theory couldn't account for what was being observed. That is what bothers me.

Now, when another problem comes up, another theory will be thought up to account for it. It probably won't be extant at the time. In other words, we don't really know what happened or how it happened. As I said before, we're guessing. Wait till CERN gets off the ground. All hell is going to break loose in the physics and cosmology communities. A whole new set of theories will have to be brought online. It'll be a whole new ballgame.

I never play devil's advocate. It's too much fun just to show people that knowledge isn't a done deal and we're not as smart as we think.

Oh, just out of curiosity are there good estimates of the size of the universe.

I think you guys scared a lot of the people away with all the physics talk. I'm still bothered by the assertion that there are over 10^40000 planets that a lot of people are making. Does anyone know of resonable maximum estimates for the mass or size of the universe, or for the total number of planets for that matter. That seems so very unlikely to me, but then again I'm not an authority in the field.

Somewhere several pages back someone said there is no genetic evidence that humans had a common ansestor with other speices. We don't know what the common speices is, but there is a ton of genetic evidence. Ranging from sequence similarities (someone could argue they were just created this way), but we also have: identical mutations in related species, same virus integrated in exact same location in related species, etc. We don't just make up the phylogenetic trees showing the relatedness of organisms. They are usually based on genetic comparison. Granted in the past people did sort of make them up based on physical atributes. The lengths of the branches represent degree of relatedness/how long ago the organisms are thought to have diverged.

good points... but none of you will discover anythuing else if u keep fighting! theres got to be a reason i made all of you figments so damned curious....



sometimes i think people aren't turning out the way i wanted. thats when i wish i retained the power to stomp you all out like little mud creatures......

then i remember i would have to do THIS all over again, and thats no fun!


:fluffle:

<snip Holloway's silly argument> (c) Adrian Holloway 2004

Holloway [with the scientific credentials of TV Sports presenter and writer for The Times, if we're thinking of the same guy] assumes that there is only one possible configuration of the universe that could possibily produce life; he assumes that if life couldn't have occured the way it did, it could not have occurred at all.

How many of the other possible universe configurations could have supported some form of life, just not ours?

Also, wasn't that calculation by Roger Penrose?

I believe in Evolution! Everything evolves around GOD allmighty! ;)

Oh, just out of curiosity are there good estimates of the size of the universe.

No not really as the edge of the universe can't be determined. We can estimate a lower limit (i.e. it has to be bigger than this) by measuring how far away the furthest star/galaxy/cluster is using a super nova.

I think you guys scared a lot of the people away with all the physics talk. I'm still bothered by the assertion that there are over 10^40000 planets that a lot of people are making. Does anyone know of resonable maximum estimates for the mass or size of the universe, or for the total number of planets for that matter. That seems so very unlikely to me, but then again I'm not an authority in the field.

Somewhere several pages back someone said there is no genetic evidence that humans had a common ansestor with other speices. We don't know what the common speices is, but there is a ton of genetic evidence. Ranging from sequence similarities (someone could argue they were just created this way), but we also have: identical mutations in related species, same virus integrated in exact same location in related species, etc. We don't just make up the phylogenetic trees showing the relatedness of organisms. They are usually based on genetic comparison. Granted in the past people did sort of make them up based on physical atributes. The lengths of the branches represent degree of relatedness/how long ago the organisms are thought to have diverged.

We seem to have that effect on people. The thing is there could probably be that many planets in the universe, the problem is people have trouble realising how big 10^40000 is and they also have trouble realising how vast the universe actually is. Our galaxy is pretty big as someone said the number of stars in it are 200 for every grain of sand on the earth. However in universe terms our galaxy is insignifcant in the extreme. So if only one star in a billion had an M-class planet you would still have a lot of suitable planets in the universe.

To top it off you could also have the parallel universe theory (not accepted at the moment as there is no evidence for it, so this is just speculation on my part) but if it is true then you get a seperate universe for each possibility that could have occurred untill now. This would guarantee life started on earth as there are 1 - 1x10^40000 possibilites (universes) where it did not occur and one universe where it has occured (ours).

No not really as the edge of the universe can't be determined. We can estimate a lower limit (i.e. it has to be bigger than this) by measuring how far away the furthest star/galaxy/cluster is using a super nova.

The problem being that the further away something is, the "further back in time" we're seeing it.

So that super nova we see 12 billion light years away was 12 billion light years away from us 12 billion years ago...or something like that.

And since time is relative, our region of the universe could have experience the passage of 15 billion years since the beginning, while another part might have only experienced 14 billion years, if it's moving faster than us.

No not really as the edge of the universe can't be determined. We can estimate a lower limit (i.e. it has to be bigger than this) by measuring how far away the furthest star/galaxy/cluster is using a super nova.



We seem to have that effect on people. The thing is there could probably be that many planets in the universe, the problem is people have trouble realising how big 10^40000 is and they also have trouble realising how vast the universe actually is. Our galaxy is pretty big as someone said the number of stars in it are 200 for every grain of sand on the earth. However in universe terms our galaxy is insignifcant in the extreme. So if only one star in a billion had an M-class planet you would still have a lot of suitable planets in the universe.

To top it off you could also have the parallel universe theory (not accepted at the moment as there is no evidence for it, so this is just speculation on my part) but if it is true then you get a seperate universe for each possibility that could have occurred untill now. This would guarantee life started on earth as there are 1 - 1x10^40000 possibilites (universes) where it did not occur and one universe where it has occured (ours).

Yeah I'm aware that it is possible with the multiverse hypothesis. It was just troubling to me that people so easily shrugged off the number as possible. I think people forget that the universe is believed to have finite mass and don't realize the number is that big. It sounds like our universe is quite possibly much too small to allow for that many planets, but it also sounds like we have no idea of the size so it is possible. But evenso, assuming one universe I would guess most planets are less able to spontaneously generate life, not more likely.

I still say that number makes it improbable that life arose spontaneously. But the number and its interpretation are flawed.
1. It is calculated assuming life is created in one particular way. That is by one very narrow model of abiogenesis. There are probably numerous ways for ambiogenesis to occur.
2. It isn't even based on current scientific theory. It is outdated. It completley ignores the RNA world hypothesis. The idea that RNA was the first self replicating molecule. This is much more feasible then the protein idea because it is much easier to imagine RNA being able to self replicate. And going back to problem 1. Really the RNA World hypothesis shouldn't replace the protein world one, but actually be added to it since they are both possible ways of generating life
3. It only factors in the probability of life occuring on Earth. I won't comment further because this one has been beat to death.
4. People assume. that if the probability of life occuring spontaneously is low then there has to be an intelligent designer. But does not factor in the probability of life occuring this way. As some other people have pointed out allready. It doesn't matter if its impossible to assign a probability of God's existance, but the argument doesn't fly unless you can. As far as I know the probability of God could be lower in this circumstance.
5. Just about every variable in the calculations are based on baseless assumptions.

The problem being that the further away something is, the "further back in time" we're seeing it.

So that super nova we see 12 billion light years away was 12 billion light years away from us 12 billion years ago...or something like that.

And since time is relative, our region of the universe could have experience the passage of 15 billion years since the beginning, while another part might have only experienced 14 billion years, if it's moving faster than us.

That is true though if our theory of General Relativity and cosmological model is roughly correct then we can still calculate the minimum size of the universe using super nova at any time relative to the start of the universe. It gets harder as it is not just looking back in time but also looking at a time when space-time itself was smaller (thinking about this too much hurts my head).

.

All the points you make are correct about the way life could have started. It is just people earlier on in the discussion didn't seem to understand this point. You are also correct to say that the majortiy of planets are unlikely to be suitable for life as we know it (all the planets found around other stars have been jupiter sized gas planets in orbits similar to the inner planets). You are correct also to state that life (as we know it on earth) would be unlikely as it is very dependent on the conditions found on/around Earth. However for life to actually to start (the simple stuff, the primodeal goo) it has been hypothesised that life could be found beneath the surface of one of the gas giants moons (can't remember which one, the moon covered in ice will a predicted liquid ocean below it), similar to the basic eco systems found around deep ocenanic vents. So the conditions for very basic life are not as stringent as the ones needed for complex life.

My question would be, was the calculation for complex or simple life appearing on earth. He most likely did the complex life which includes single cell organisms.

Sorry i seem to have started to ramble on.:(

Yeah, I believe in microevolution but NOT MACROEVOLUTION, because I believe that humans were created seperately from animals/fish/birds/plants. If macroevolution was right, why have we not discovered any transitional fossils in these hundreds of years we've been digging? I mean, animals with wings not yet strong enought to fly with yet, and that sort of thing.

.....
Ok, explain a couple of facts then.
Why do Chimps and Humans have between 96% and almost 99% identical DNA (depending on how it is compaired)?

Humans are born with tails occationally, they just cut them off over here in the West, not always over in the East.. http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm

And there are actually many, many animals that show transitional evolution. Many are alive today. Go look up Lungfish and the Coelacanth from the living and 60 million year old fossils (http://www.dinofish.com/). Look at what happened to the wings of a penguin or a Emu. Or check out Archaeopteryx, then compair his arm to a modern bird, then to a Velociraptor. I could go on, but work calls. Enjoy.

That is true though if our theory of General Relativity and cosmological model is roughly correct then we can still calculate the minimum size of the universe using super nova at any time relative to the start of the universe. It gets harder as it is not just looking back in time but also looking at a time when space-time itself was smaller (thinking about this too much hurts my head).



All the points you make are correct about the way life could have started. It is just people earlier on in the discussion didn't seem to understand this point. You are also correct to say that the majortiy of planets are unlikely to be suitable for life as we know it (all the planets found around other stars have been jupiter sized gas planets in orbits similar to the inner planets). You are correct also to state that life (as we know it on earth) would be unlikely as it is very dependent on the conditions found on/around Earth. However for life to actually to start (the simple stuff, the primodeal goo) it has been hypothesised that life could be found beneath the surface of one of the gas giants moons (can't remember which one, the moon covered in ice will a predicted liquid ocean below it), similar to the basic eco systems found around deep ocenanic vents. So the conditions for very basic life are not as stringent as the ones needed for complex life.

My question would be, was the calculation for complex or simple life appearing on earth. He most likely did the complex life which includes single cell organisms.

Sorry i seem to have started to ramble on.:(

I think what you are running into is different ideas and not just a complexity issue. Some people assert that their is a very tiny probability that life would have arose on earth given the conditions believed to be on earth when it arose and a very narrow theory on how that life arose. These people assert that it is so improbable that it will only occur on 1:10^40000 Earth-like planets. Other people look at it from the other end and say, we don't know how life arose on Earth, but anywhere that has conditions similar enough to primordial Earth could concievably develope life (if it happened once, it can happen again). These people don't bother to worry about bogus probabilities when there isn't enough information to calcualte them properly and just argue that we look for life in these locations. As far as we know under these conditions the development of life might be the norm. Some even say that life as we know it seems to only really require liquid water, so anywhere with liquid water could have life. That's why we look for it on Mars, which was once thought to have liquid water, and why we discuss looking for it in other parts of our solar system.

I think what you are running into is different ideas and not just a complexity issue. Some people assert that their is a very tiny probability that life would have arose on earth given the conditions believed to be on earth when it arose and a very narrow theory on how that life arose. These people assert that it is so improbable that it will only occur on 1:10^40000 Earth-like planets. Other people look at it from the other end and say, we don't know how life arose on Earth, but anywhere that has conditions similar enough to primordial Earth could concievably develope life (if it happened once, it can happen again). These people don't bother to worry about bogus probabilities when there isn't enough information to calcualte them properly and just argue that we look for life in these locations. As far as we know under these conditions the development of life might be the norm. Some even say that life as we know it seems to only really require liquid water, so anywhere with liquid water could have life. That's why we look for it on Mars, which was once thought to have liquid water, and why we discuss looking for it in other parts of our solar system.

I agree with your point, I can't think of anything else to respond with now though it was a fun debate near the end.:D

This is just one example, but there's others - such as pre-columbian transoceanic contact with the Americas. The scientific evidence is staggering, but there's not even a corner of scientific orthodoxy that's willing to even look at this.



Funny that. Because I learnt about pre-columbian contact in school about ten years ago. Maybe because it is not talked about by scientists because that is history and not science?

1 X 10^40000 you say? There are more planets in the universe than that, so it seems perfectly reasonable that life could come about by chance here and elsewhere. Not that the origin of life has anything to do with evolution anyway.

infact I recently saw a documentary using a similar number to calculate the odds of there being life on other planets, assuming life occured by chance. It was never supposed to refute evolution, just show that most planets dont have life on them.

Chandra Wickramsinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramsinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: 'I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.' He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been 'strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation'. He concludes: 'The only logical answer to life is creation - and not random accidental shuffling' (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard p. 298.)

Sorry Wickramsinghe, that isn't the equivalent of no chance.
The recent discovery of well formed galaxies at a distance previously not established before by the Hubble telescope only goes to underscore that the universe is so vast the improbable happens quite often.

1 X 10^40000 you say? There are more planets in the universe than that, so it seems perfectly reasonable that life could come about by chance here and elsewhere. Not that the origin of life has anything to do with evolution anyway.

infact I recently saw a documentary using a similar number to calculate the odds of there being life on other planets, assuming life occured by chance. It was never supposed to refute evolution, just show that most planets dont have life on them.

Please post your source that tells you that there are more then 10^40000 planets in the universe. I did a lot of searching and the only estimates I saw were much smaller, but all of them claimed that there was not enough data to accurately predict. And yes, I made certain they were talking about the whole universe and not just the visible universe.

Please post your source that tells you that there are more then 10^40000 planets in the universe. I did a lot of searching and the only estimates I saw were much smaller, but all of them claimed that there was not enough data to accurately predict. And yes, I made certain they were talking about the whole universe and not just the visible universe.

Yeah, I somehow dont think there are 10^40000 planets in the universe. Probably someone doesnt understand scheintific notation.

The supposed 1:1x10^40000 chance of evolution happening is still ridiculous though.

Yeah, I believe in microevolution but NOT MACROEVOLUTION, because I believe that humans were created seperately from animals/fish/birds/plants. If macroevolution was right, why have we not discovered any transitional fossils in these hundreds of years we've been digging? I mean, animals with wings not yet strong enought to fly with yet, and that sort of thing.
my bold.

Like say chickens, emus, ostriches and penguins to name a few?

Fossils are hard enough to make - first an animal has to die in the right place at the right time in the right conditions, then it has to be undisturbed by scavangers for long enough for it to be buried, then it has to stay buried and geologically undisturbed for 50million odd years. then the fossil has to be found by someone who just happens to be digging in the right place, normally with the intent of finding a fossil (mining and construction sites do not give a fig about fossils of ants and the like) who breaks a rock in the right way to by chance reveal a fossil. Demanding a complete fossil record is analogous to asking for Noahs home video of the loading of the Arc. Gaps in the fossil record are not a great way to disprove evolution. Evolution could be very easily be disproved using the fossil record (or thrown under severe scrutiny) if you found something that did not fit with the timeline - say a Rabbit in the Cambrian time or a Mammoth in the Jurassic period.