Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
66 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, Hyroglyphx (3 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,203 Year: 10,951/23,288 Month: 203/1,763 Week: 170/390 Day: 59/32 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution has been Disproven
sfs
Member (Idle past 1113 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 107 of 301 (184057)
02-09-2005 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Parasomnium
02-09-2005 4:20 AM


Re: Probability?
quote:
What do you mean by "law of probability is 10 to the 50th power"? It is a meaningless statement to me.

Probably a reference to "Borel's Law", which is a confusion popular among some creationists. The idea is that any probability smaller than 10^-50 can be treated as impossible. Talk.origins has a FAQ on the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Parasomnium, posted 02-09-2005 4:20 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

sfs
Member (Idle past 1113 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 109 of 301 (184076)
02-09-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Juhrahnimo
02-09-2005 12:25 AM


Re: yep,
quote:
You hit it right on the head. And the REASON they distance themselves from abiogenesis is the "amino acid problem" that is absolutely insurmountable.

No, the reason evolutionists (professional ones, I mean) distance themselves from abiogenesis is that it is a problem from a different field, requiring different knowledge and different methods to address. Evolutionists also distance themselves from problems in particle physics and meteorology, and for the same reasons.

quote:

And third, they "lack any credible alternative theory" because they don't want to consider GOD as the owner of this chunk of real estate, and that he made some rules for anyone who wants to live here (rules like "thou shalt not bear false witness" and "thou shalt not covet" and "thou shalt not use God's name in vain", etc). If they leave God out, they will NEVER have a credible alternative theory.


I also recall those rules including something about not judging others, and yet here you are judging the motives of people you've never met. Go figure. As it happens, I do believe (as a matter of faith) that God is the owner of this chunk of real estate, so I'm unlikely to find your guesses about my motives persuasive. I will note that this is the kind of combined ignorance and arrogance that give creationism (and often Christianity as a result) a bad name.

I'm happy to consider an alternative hypothesis that includes God. Could you state one, please? One that adequately addresses all of the data we do have about biology, and not just the data we don't have about how life started?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-09-2005 12:25 AM Juhrahnimo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 02-09-2005 9:56 PM sfs has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020