God: The Failed Hypothesis »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 4 months, 2 weeks ago425 Comments Report this Story
"How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist", by Victor J. Stenger. Well folks, I guess this settles it...
Read Full Story at colorado.edu
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 425
-
0%
RickyDawkins4 months, 2 weeks ago
It is empirical fact that unnecessary suffering exists in the world.
An omniscient God would be aware of this unnecessary suffering.
An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
An benevolent God would have the desire to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
It follows that a God with the attributes of the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God does not exist.
----
The laws of physics look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
----
God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.
----
If God exists, then he is perfect.
If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
But the universe is not perfect.
Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
Reply-
0%
engineer4 months, 2 weeks ago
I understand your argument but disagree. Two sexes with the complexities couldn't come naturally,
Birds with their method of flying and the complexity of the aerodynamics couldn't come naturally.
God helped in the design but allowed for flaws. It's a hard concept to believe, but there are so many things which could have not occurred with out help. A supreme being of some sort if you don't want to say God.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins4 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't understand what you mean when you say "couldn't come naturally". Science tells us that the earth formed billions of years ago, from star dust. Mind-boggling complexity is readily achievable through evolution and selection (and time), this is a proven fact.
I find it impossible (as you do?) to believe that everything we see just came from "nothing".
I don't mind discussing the concept of God (obviously), however I just don't see any reason to buy into a random tale.
Did He just come from nowhere?
Isn't this something you need to at least consider?
I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question:
Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
Please explore this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
Ricky: The incontrovertible empirical fact, which would hold up under honest court examination, is that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. He said that He was one with God the Father. He takes precedence to your false science.
Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there.
You postulate that the concept of God is "a random tale," but you know better. There is a long record, which you may reject it's truth, but you know it's not random.
Then your practice is to ask many crafted leading questions, but they have different answers than you would accept, unless you had your eyes opened to the truth:
" Did He just come from nowhere? Isn't this something you need to at least consider? I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question: Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
First you poison the well, expecting a "dodge." Cont'd>>
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
AIR: You show your ignorance. What else do you not believe about established history? -Rev. S
Reply-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
Wasn't talking 2U, but I was referring to established history. You wish to bring in something that is inappropriate to the issue, thinking that makes a point. -Rev. S
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk4 months, 2 weeks ago
ROFLMAO, maybe you missed it, you're posting on a PUBLIC board which makes anything you post open for anyone to comment on, especially when its way off base. Maybe you can indulge us all and explain how my comment was inappropriate to the tissue when it illustrated the point very clearly. But then again when all you can post are strawman arguments I wont expect too much.
Reply -
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
No problem, but you came into a reply giving a contribution that didn't apply.
I have no problem interacting with others, but it helps to be on the same page. Not even those with whom we initially give reply are always on the same page. So, no big thing.
WMD's being in Iraq are not established history, but current events that are in controversy. So, not too good in making a point, but seems more like a political statement, that has missed the target. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
No, although I think that the war was inevitable, since Saddam admitted to plans to develop WMD's, I consider GWB was a bit hasty in the conflict. We should have had better understanding of the age old conflicts of the area & had strategy to avoid the pitfalls in which we found.
BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice.
HooRah! -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
dunkirk4 months, 1 week ago
ROFLMAO, I believe the justification for the war was he HAD WMD and was planning on using them not he was thinking about making them. If that is the case we should turn our atttention alittle SouthEast and plan for the invaion of Israel since they seem to not only be planning but not fessing up to having them either.
"BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice"
ROFLMAO, and pixie fairie dust has been found to cure cancer.
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Do you want me to cut & paste the transcript? Pixie fairy dust indeed! You make me LOL. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
CRYMTYPHON4 months, 2 weeks ago
(ת') ש×; ×;ר×;×;-× ×;ש×;×;×;×;, ×;ת×;×;×;
(ש"×¢) × ×¢×¨×;; ×;ת×;×;×;; ×¢×;×;×;; ×;ש×; ×;×; × ×©×;×;×;
Reply
-
-
0%
blackandwhitekitty4 months, 2 weeks ago
I see you've never been on a jury. Remember the adage about a ham sandwich?
Reply
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins4 months, 2 weeks ago
Rev. Silverghost, thank you for your input. (i apologize for poisoning the well, btw)
So, what of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?
When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
To me, its just a random fairy tale, like that of Mohammed, or Tom Thumb. Sure you can say its "true" all you like, but its still just ideas, nothing concrete.
Reply-
0%
Coatl4 months, 2 weeks ago
"What else do you not believe about established history?"
The part when the sun stoped his movement arround the earth. =P
Come on, I know that you are Christian, but do you really thing that there is "incontrovertible empirical" evidence that Jesus indeed arose from the dead? I know that you believe is true, and I wouldn't want you to think otherwise. But as far as I know there is more evidence for the divine origin of the image of the virgin of Guadalupe than for the resurection of Jesus.
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 2 weeks ago
established history?
Hahahahahahahaha. Next you'll be saying it is established history that the world was created by the body of Ymir the frost-giant slain by his sons.....
Reply -
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanx, Ricky, for that. I was a little slow getting my continuation before your reply.
"What of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?" The answer is in my continuation below, given by King David. Also Paul gave answer to that in Romans 1. The testimony of God is in each individual, but we corrupt it, worshiping the creation, rather than the creator.
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
It goes beyond "just ideas." -Rev. S
Reply-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Of course, HB, it is a part of history & archaeological data, just the same as hieroglyphic tablets, graphics on cave walls, etc.
Two British archaeologists, towards the beginning of the 20th C., set out separately in attempts to discover finds that would disprove the Bible. As they searched, they only discovered confirming material. When these colleagues met, they were astonished at the similar results of confirmation. One became a preacher.
Other finds have confirmed Biblical accuracy, but I know of no valid claims to disproof. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
0%
aceofspades14 months, 2 weeks ago
But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
archaeological finds?? I don't think so.
A Jesus story that has been verified by eyewitnesses & handed down through the centuries-
When Jesus walked on water John rushed up to him & said Lord tis a true miracle what you just did.
Jesus looked at him & replied " Miracle?? Step on the stones, John!"
Reply
-
-
-
0%
smithichie4 months, 2 weeks ago
I have no problem with faith but I do have a problem when people try to enforce their faith by pretending it's 'established history'. I think we agree, from different sides of the proverbial aisle, that the establishment part, sort of defeats the whole purpose of faith in the first place.
Reply -
0%
memestryker4 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm concerned that "faith" is just a word that is an attempt to justify the reality of believing in scientifically unproven--and unlikely--stories passed down as part of cultural heritage because of fear of what might happen if one questions it.
Most religions build in an intimidation tactic that people internalize, such as fear of burning in agony in a bottomless pit, or fear of being tortured by a devil.
Some religions ostracize through excommunication or other social punishments as well.
Reply-
-
0%
rdy2rck4 months, 2 weeks ago
You kind of defined what I believe faith is meme which is the believe in something that which can't be proven by scientific methods.I also agree about the intimidation factor in some organized "religions" but my "faith" believes it's ultimately between me and God.:). So once again faith comes into play because I can't prove my belief.
The biggest toughie for me is(not you) is not responding to non peaceful attacks on my beliefs because "judge not lest ye be judged" is an impossible task yet a worthy goal.
Reply-
0%
memestryker4 months, 2 weeks ago
Not judging others is a toughie for me, too, and I also think it's a worthy goal and impossible.
I sometimes write exactly what I think (and feel) and then edit it before I hit submit! And occasionally I just hit submit!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
lvrofwolves4 months, 2 weeks ago
RickyDawkins-When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
this is for you ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg
Reply
-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
Cont'd>> Secondly, the answer to your only true question here, Biblically, is that God is Eternal, He wasn't created.
I know that doesn't fit under your "science" microscope, but you aren't able to fit many other questions there either. Yet there is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus Christ as the one who paid for our sins.
You admit that there is imperfection in man & the universe, but you wish to set yourself up as judge to how that happened.
Your not that old to have been there! LOL
God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God, thus causing the degeneration that you see in the world & universe.
But King David said: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament (atmospheric earth)." He goes on to say that God's creation declares this truth to all people on the earth. Evidence. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
Ahh, good, Hannibal! I'm glad you know the story about Jacob.
My Question for you: Did you ever wrestle with your child or someone else's? Although you could completely overcome the child, did you smash it? It there was some purpose in the struggle to teach something, would that be necessarily strange?
Because there is an unexpected outcome, doesn't say the teacher was wrong. There were other factors with the incident with Jacob. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
Semantics, HB. You've undoubtedly heard of true stories, but you strain to critique beyond obvious meaning.
There were other things God wished to teach the feisty Jacob. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 2 weeks ago
"God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God..."
Yet in this perfect world roamed another of God creations, Lucifer, who tried to be as high as God himself and was cast down and became Satan, who was the one who convinced Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life and on an on....
So my question is how was it a perfect world if this snake oil salesman was allow to roam free?
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
I wasn't addressing you, saying, "you know enough Scripture," but Ricky.
However, you do know a little about Scripture it seems, but I don't have experience knowing how much you know.
God had created Lucifer, the Chief of the angels, as a perfect being, but he chose to rebel. The Scripture shows that God puts limits on Satan, but also uses his antics to effect his purposes in man.
There was a free choice for Adam, whether to obey God in Eden or not. Satan was an instrument that allowed the test, in which Adam failed.
But God provided the way to forgiveness & reconciliation, through Christ. -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you for your answer. I've studies the creation myths of several religions other than the one I was brought up in, which btw was Christianity, and I feel that not one explains how we got here and I reject them all.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
smithichie4 months, 2 weeks ago
"Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there".
What is this "false premise" you speak of? You speak of leading questions than pose strawman arguments.
Reply-
-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
God's Holy Word says that people would rather believe a lie than the truth which He has revealed.
A geologist, whom I personally know & who was a former archaeological museum curator, realized 1 day that he supported his calculations for ages of bones by circular reasoning, which is false science. In subsequent studies, He realized that all existing evidence demonstrates sudden appearance of life, which has been confirmed by many other credited scientists.
There is no extant evidence for gradual appearance of life, therefore the theory of evolution rests upon a false premise. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
No. There was only one creation. I appreciate your kind questioning, Coati.
There are sedimentary deposits that give evidence to floods or great movements of earth surface. Yet the lowest stratum obviously came first. On those lower strata, complex life forms exist.
God created different species that had capacity within their genetic code to develop different varieties of that same species, but not new species. -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
Coatl4 months, 2 weeks ago
OK, "complex" animals as trilobites can be found in the lower stratus, but still reptiles, are first found in superior strata, dinosaurs and birds in an even superior strata, and mammals in another superior one, and noticing that T-Rexes, Trilobites, and Dimetrodonts aren't found in the same layer so it's obvious that they didn't coexist between each other and with us.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Yes, but I'd have to dig it up. LOL Seriously, it has been discovered as such. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
smithichie4 months, 2 weeks ago
Bones do not appear in the fossil record of life until 500 or so million years ago, even though we have evidence of life existing 3.8 Billion years ago, that's at least 3 Billion years before bones evolved. My question is, how do you define "sudden"?
Evolution does not address the appearance of life, just that life is related and it has been changing and adapting ever since that appearance. Your misconception of evolution is the only false premise.
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
A recent argument from evolutionists is that they are not addressing the appearance of life, but the history of the movement states otherwise.
If there were billions of years involved, there would have been a different experience for astronauts when they landed on the moon. They expected many feet of cosmic dust to have collected, but they only found less than an inch, indicating a young moon.
Scientists don't always follow scientific procedure in processing their theories. -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
Coatl4 months, 2 weeks ago
Come on, have you seen the moon surface? It's not that it's been undisturbingly recolecting "cosmic dust".
Reply -
0%
smithichie4 months, 2 weeks ago
Darwin's famous book is called, "Origin of Species", not Origin of Life. What do you mean by 'recent'?
The moon dust argument? LOL Apparently you didn't get the memo that even the Christian website, "answers in genesis" has given up on that tired argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4...
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Thanx Smithi: I considered this, as did the author at AIG, "a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation." Since both sides should go back to the drawing board for new data, I will relinquish the inaccuracy of the old claim & wait to see fresh data. But see that the culpability is on both sides:
"Interestingly, Snelling and Rush's research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction...and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted. 2"
"Creationists as well as evolutionists need to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges."
That's good to know. Thanx 4 the link. -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
smithichie4 months, 1 week ago
You're welcome Silver. I rarely, if ever, agree with AIG but I had to share this link and I do agree with your last quote. We all must be prepared to re-examine arguments when presented with new and better data. That is the bedrock of both scientific inquiry and plain old common sense. My hat's off to both you and AIG for admiting to the inaccuracy and commiting to stop the spread of incorrect data and misinformation, on at least this one point.
The culpability isn't on "both sides", instead it belongs with anyone who would knowingly use incorrect data in an attempt to support their argument. It should be noted the 'anti-creationists' cited are Calvinist Theological Evolutionists.
Here's a link about how the original mismeasurements, made from material collected on Earth were made and how they were called "the best measurements", even though far more accurate data, collected from space, was widely known.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Smithi: Technically, I was concerned with using the term, "culpability," but it certainly does apply to those who willingly present false data to bolster their position. I try to distance myself from that attitude in myself or others.
Thanx 4 the new link. I'll have top check it out later...in a rush. -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
smithichie4 months, 1 week ago
I think if you look into it you will find the evidence for a 'young Earth' is quite lacking and the evidence of an Earth with an age of 4.6 Billion years is very compelling. As is the evidence of evolution.
With that said, I don't see how evolution or a 4.6 Billion year old Earth should be a problem for a believer in an all powerful god. I am confident that with enough time religions that include dogma that runs contrary with evolution or an ancient Earth will go the same as those whose dogma includes a flat Earth or a Sun that orbits the Earth.
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Smithi: In my experience, the kind of Christians that believe in a young earth, also know enough to agree with Christopher Columbus, who defied the flat earth die hards. He saw that in Isaiah 40:22, it spake of the circle of the earth. When he look across "flat" waters, he could see the arch of the horizon, confirming in his mind that the Scriptures indicate a round earth. So, he dared to sail the Atlantic.
The kind of people with whom I associate, seriously study the Scriptures, not taking man's philosophies over what God said. God said that He created the Heaven and the earth, animals, plants & man in 6 days. The language has been studied for accuracy of meaning & the Hebrew for day in this case means a 24 hour period.
We seek to honor valid scientific discovery & processing of theories, but honor God 1st in what He says, believing that He doesn't make mistakes. We haven't seen Him proven wrong. Cont'd>>
Reply-
0%
smithichie4 months, 1 week ago
Silver- I know that I am not as familiar with your bible as you, but I do know there are a number of references to a flat Earth with an orbiting sun, not to mention that "circle of Earth" can still imply a flat Earth as it say's 'circle' not sphere.
Now, if you are moved by the word the circle into thinking your god was telling us of a round Earth all along, what do you make of these lines from Genesis? 1:11 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth grass... 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth...1:24 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature...
I have come across Christians who believe the above lines refer to evolution in much the same way you believe Isaiah 40:22 refers to a spherical Earth.
IMHO, the bible is long enough and vague enough, that lines can be found to support any position, but that's another matter.
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Smithi: There are no references to a flat earth in the Bible. The only "difficulty" is wording such as: "The sun rises...", being a problem of communication. This is the way we speak: The sun rises, sets...the stars come out, etc.
As far as Columbus was concerned, he believed that God was talking of a spherical earth, the Hebrew, "khoog," meaning circle or circumference. He saw the roundness of the horizon.
As you quoted Gen. 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth..." The next verse (context!): "And God created..." Again, v.24: "Let the earth bring forth..." Next verse! "And God made..."
The contention that the Bible is "vague" is dispelled by "Come now & let us reason together, saith the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18.
To "support any position" is a fallacy of proper interpretation, which can be also dispelled, but "that's another matter," I agree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Cont'd>> That is not to say that we can't be wrong on certain issues. Yet when God says something plainly & someone comes along & defies that plain statement, we have a problem agreeing with that thinking.
The Bible speaks of the hidden things of God. Sometimes appearances are there to conceal the truth from those who don't wish to honor Him or haven't quite come that far to understand. The geologist of whom I spake earlier, had ultimately realized that he & his colleagues had used circular reasoning in dating earth's fossils & it's strata. This is after a Christian repeatedly asked him how he established the age of these items. He finally admitted to himself the false basis on which he relied.
There are a large group of highly credited scientists who do not agree that the earth is billions of yrs old. In my studies, looking at what both sides of this issue say, I agree with the young earth position. -Rev. S
Reply-
0%
smithichie4 months, 1 week ago
"Yet when God says something plainly".
If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed. Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least.
The half life of radioactive elements is not based on circular reasoning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-eart...
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 1 week ago
Smithi: "If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed." This doesn't seem to bear logic. The Bible is communicating what God said. As it states, "Thus saith the Lord..."
"Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least." I don't rely on imagining (mysticism), but that the Bible claims God's authorship, as Peter, Paul, John & Jesus Christ maintained in the N.T., often referring to O.T. passages as well. The Bible speaks of God's preservation of the Scriptures, which has been accomplished.
Editing is only accomplished in unfaithful modern translations, but not in the KJV, for which we have the preserved original words in extant manuscripts to compare.
I appreciate the link. While Chris Stassen has a studied reasoning, he does indicate that other scientists disagree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
smithichie4 months, 2 weeks ago
Life evolves and has been doing so for at least 3.8 billion years on Earth. If you have evidence of something different feel free to share.
Reply-
0%
StillUnashamed4 months, 2 weeks ago
I did some research earlier today on the origin of life, specifically spontaneous generation, where the first organic life form arose from inorganic chemicals. It took a while to find an article from an evolutionist that tackled the question of how that first single-cell life emerged. At the end of that rather lengthy and very detailed study, the author (I'm sorry, I'm now at a different computer and can't remember his name, I'll get it tomorrow) said most research papers end with conclusions. However, this one must end with assumptions. We can only ASSUME that first self-replication organic life form was the result of random acts of nature on inorganic chemicals, and so on. I'll provide the exact quote and link tomorrow.
Reply-
0%
smithichie4 months, 2 weeks ago
If you notice, I said nothing of the origin of life, just that it has been evolving for at least 3.8 billion years, which is the age of the oldest known Earth rocks. Earlier evidence, including the evidence of how life originated are lost to the ages. In short we don't know how life originated on Earth and likely never will, however, I personally fail to see the reasoning that magic should be inserted when faced with an unknown.
Reply-
0%
Muleskinner4 months, 2 weeks ago
Because it's easier to understand than chemistry & physics :o)
Reply
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa4 months, 2 weeks ago
The reason you won't find "evolutionist" scholarly papers about the origin of life is pretty simple. Evolution has nothing to do with it. It is a study of observable evidence of changes through natural selection. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. A more appropriate area of research would be the creation of new life in the laboratory.
Craig Venter, the DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals, The implications of creating a new life form are staggering to say the least.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/TenWays/story?i...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/g...
Allegedly what is holding up the official announcement is the "patenting" of the new life form. (Can a lifeform be patented? etc.)
Reply-
0%
StillUnashamed4 months, 2 weeks ago
"Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. ? ?
The whole concept of evolution begins with that first single cell organism. Without it, evolution would not be possible. Scientists just have no reasonable explaination of how that first organism came to be.
Reply-
0%
StillUnashamed4 months, 2 weeks ago
The link I referred to and a quote: http://www.discovery.org/a/3209
"At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed:
"First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
"These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought."
David Berlinski, the author most recently of Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (Modern Library), is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute.
Reply-
0%
Silverghost4 months, 2 weeks ago
An excellent scholarly work, SC, by a brilliant & accomplished scientist. Thanx 4 the link. : ~ ) -Rev. S
Reply -
0%
hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago
Ah my! The "discovery" institute - founded, funded, and flagellated by creationists. Nothing there to take with any crdibility.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Tangent0014 months, 2 weeks ago
Macro-evolution is evolution at the 'speciation' level, i.e. the appearance of new species.
I suggest you investigate the 'Nylon Bug' which is a new species of bacteria that feeds on nylon waste. I'd also suggest you look into 'ring species'. Both are examples of macro-evolution.
The distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' as it applies to evolution is largely artificial. Micro-evolution naturally proceeds to macro-evolution after the amount of changes between populations of organisms is so great that individual members of the genetically distinct populations can no longer interbreed.
Reply -
0%
CRYMTYPHON4 months, 2 weeks ago
A sufficient number of 'micro-evolution' changes would equate to a 'macro-evolution' change, no ?
Reply
</
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
