Uh, I think you need to brush up on the concept of theory and fact and what evolution is and is not. I am no liberal (as a casual search of my previous posts will attest) but I still think believing in creationism in this day and age is a feat of astonishing ignorance.
Uh oh, Shoeshineboy has returned spewing his nonsense. I think I just heard my boss calling me. Gotta go....
>Do they think it occurred by random >processes? Of course not! Like you know what the NASA guys think. What hubris. JB
Sardo "but I still think believing in creationism in this day and age is a feat of astonishing ignorance". Great. Take me up on my challenge. Post a link proving evolution. Enlighten the ignorant around you.
Gordon Gekko, Why don't you help us all out and define evolution. What is evolution? Give us your best definition. While you are at it, give us some kind of response to this quote from a real scientist. He admits his philosophical underpinnings, which many evolutionists don't even know exists. Nobel laureate George Wald of Harvard admitted: We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a âphilosophical necessity.â It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation (1954, 191:46).
You guys are avoiding the numbers issues. Here's another well-know caclucation: 1. Assume the probability of a left handed amino is .5. 2. Assume the probability of two left-handed aminos bonding with a peptide is .5. 3. Assume that the there is a perfectly mixed prebiotic soup with abundant mixtures of all 20 bioactive amino acids. The probability of one amino acid is therefore .05 4. Assume that the other 80 non-bioactive amino are magically removed from the prebiotic soup concentration. The odds of one amino link forming is .0125. This means that for a simple protein of 100 aminos, the odds are .0125^100=5*10^-191!! No matter how you look at it, life could not have reasonably occurred by random processes. This is just a simple protein! Can you imagine tring to sequence together a link of RNA or DNA?!? C'mmon guys! Spock is out. Deanna Troy is in. I think most of these threads are living back in the 60's...
Prove the cause of evolution. There is no proof that the cause of evolution is not intelligent design nor the work of a Creator any more than it is just a random event. We can see and measure effect, however that doesn't provide knowledge of the cause. People just guess at the cause. Theist believe God is the cause, atheists believe something other than God is the cause. Neither side has proof though, just guesswork.
If you're not going to be a theist, then at least tell me you're a deist, pantheist or believer in panspermia so I can respect your position! Otherwise, what else can I think? Only that you believe that amino acids magically self-assemble...