Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[skews13]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

 

[alang1216]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

I believe it started when the universe started since it is governed by fundamental forces.

 

[Dagosa]

Be specific.

Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.

I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.

Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?

First, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.

 

[esalla]

Be specific.

Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.

I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.

Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never observed

 

[Dagosa]

Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob

Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.

 

[esalla]

Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob

Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.

All science leads to God. Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.

Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now

 

[Dagosa]

Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob

Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.

All science leads to God. Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.

Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now

Which God ? There are seven or eight major religions in the world. I’m guessing you don’t believe in the other six. Well, an athiest doesn’t believe in just one less. In your hypocracy, you only believe in one more.
An agnostic doesn’t disbelieve anything, he just hasn’t seen the proof yet. Really, an agnostic is more ‘ religious” then you.
So, which god ?

 

[esalla]

Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob

Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.

All science leads to God. Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.

Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now

Which God ? There are seven or eight major religions in the world. I’m guessing you don’t believe in the other six. Well, an athiest doesn’t believe in just one more. In your hypocracy, you only beluve in one more.
An agnostic doesn’t disbelieve anything, he just has t seen the proof yet, really, an agnostic is more ‘ religious” then you.
So, which god ?

God is a scientific requirement needed for the code of DNA to exist. God is not associated with any religion as all Earth life comes from him. Your question fades because you are failing to contemplate that humans will soon be jumping planets and this is enabled by knowledge not by any religion

 

[Dagosa]

God is a scientific requirement

Name one university that teaches that God is a scientific requirement in their accredited science courses. Just one. You have over 3400 to choose from.

 

[esalla]

God is a scientific requirement

Name one university that teaches that God is a scientific requirement in their accredited science courses. Just one. You have over 3400 to choose from.

Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away

LOL you are clueless

 

[esalla]

God is a scientific requirement

Name one university that teaches that God is a scientific requirement in their accredited science courses. Just one. You have over 3400 to choose from.

Still waiting champ

Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away

LOL you are clueless

 

[Dagosa]

Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away

You can’t name a university that completely understands Quantum theory either . But they don’t say “god” is responsible for cell phones. It seems like you would. We have cell phones whose foundation we don’t completely understand, and no cell phone development came in the form of the holy ghost.

Again, you’re crediting something we don’t completely understand, to God.
We did that with the tides. We used to have Gods coming out our asteroid until science added enough understanding to look elsewhere.

You’re now saying that because we can’t make a human being from scratch, there must be a god. Surprise. The stars and evolution appears to have made human beings from scratch From what we know now. . Now go ahead and make the stars gods.

 

[Dagosa]

LOL you are clueless

Ha ha
you’re the one arguing that you know more then MIT, Johns Hopkins and NASA. And I’m clueless ?

 

[esalla]

Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away

You can’t name a university that completely understands Quantum theory either . But they don’t say “god” is responsible for cell phones. It seems like you would. We have cell phones whose foundation we don’t completely understand, and no cell phone development came in the form of the holy ghost.

Again, you’re crediting something we don’t completely understand, to God.
We did that with the tides. We used to have Gods coming out our asteroid until science added enough understanding to look elsewhere.

You’re now saying that because we can’t make a human being from scratch, there must be a god. Surprise. The stars and evolution appears to have made human beings from scratch From what we know now. . Now go ahead and make the stars gods.

I can name a respected though comical physicist who claims that the entire universe is a simulation written by a great computer programmer who is clearly God

You have failed as Tyson is associated with Harvard, Columbia and Austin Universities

 

[esalla]

LOL you are clueless

Ha ha
you’re the one arguing that you know more then MIT, Johns Hopkins and NASA. And I’m clueless ?

LOL I also knew more than the FBI.........................................

Yawn

Play on Jr.

Come back with your Mom as you clearly need the help

 

[ChemEngineer]

I didn't address that at all. But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong. That can be said to be the root of evolution. A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process. Most of those have little effect. Many have detrimental effects. And some provide advantages to that life form.

Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong. The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.

There are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe. So guess what?
"Impossible." No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power. More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Be specific.

Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.

I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.

Have to have a beginning. So stop dodging.

Weatherman, the person you address is on my Ignore List for good reason, so I only can see the nonsense he writes when I reply to a reasonable person, such as you.

Crystals in caves are self replicating. Is that "evolution"? No. Water freezing into ice represents "self replicating molecules." Is water evolutionary? No.
On this fascinating subject of water about which I know quite a bit, do you realize that clouds are composed of water and watermelon is about 99% water so doesn't every Darwinist think that watermelon evolved from clouds? I mean they're more closely related than Democrats and chimps. Or are they.....

 

[Weatherman2020]

How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?

 

[ChemEngineer]

How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?

You smart, das why.

 

[Hollie]

I didn't address that at all. But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong. That can be said to be the root of evolution. A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process. Most of those have little effect. Many have detrimental effects. And some provide advantages to that life form.

Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong. The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.

There are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe. So guess what?
"Impossible." No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power. More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

Ah, yes. The standard ID'iot creationist ''it's impossible'', nonsense.

I would be hesitant to cite creationer loons as reliable sources for science matters.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.




So tell more about the creationer nonsense and the odds against biological evolution.

The obvious flaw with the creation claim against biological evolution tgat “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationer argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites.

Firstly, the silly religioner “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the religioner ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously,

As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.