Another religion thread!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Fez Hammersticks

スーパーバッド Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
29,456
Likes
10,116
Points
113
I have a friend who's trying to convert me from being a non-believer to believer. She wants me to try and debunk these questions/"facts" -- to "save" me:

• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti

• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.

• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

•Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: • Scales had to have mutated into hair. • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

•Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example

:morningtime:
 
Last edited:
I have a friend who's trying to convert me from being a non-believer to believer. She wants me to try and debunk these questions/"facts" -- to "save" me:



:morningtime:

So I imagine that she's trying to start by getting you to accept the possibility that there is a God. Is this a notion you reject?
 
Yes and no. More so, she's been trying to convince me the bible is fact and the word of 'god.' -- I don't believe a single word of whats written an any holy book/bible.
 
Yes and no. More so, she's been trying to convince me the bible is fact and the word of 'god.' -- I don't believe a single word of whats written an any holy book/bible.

There are parts of the bible that are factually and historically accurate. Doesn't prove that the whole god thing is true.
 
your friend is a retard.

those aren't reasons religion is important or useful to her, or anyone. why would she use them as a selling point?

sell faith and religion for what is actually used for: to inspire awe and quelch anomie.
 
Just say what I said to an old college friend of mine who tried to "save" me.

"I wasn't aware I needed to be saved".

and when she continued, saying I wouldn't know if I needed to be saved or not...I said "I didn't ask to be saved."

And then i said "now finish taking off your top...no, a little slower...that's it...daddy likes it when you do that..."
 
Just say what I said to an old college friend of mine who tried to "save" me.

"I wasn't aware I needed to be saved".

and when she continued, saying I wouldn't know if I needed to be saved or not...I said "I didn't ask to be saved."

And then i said "now finish taking off your top...no, a little slower...that's it...daddy likes it when you do that..."

LOL!
 
The third point is the only really interesting one to me.

Fred Hoyle is probably most famous for being horribly wrong about the Big Bang (he believed in a static universe that's been around forever).
 
Just tell her that Jesus would want her to save you by sleeping with you.
 
The third point is the only really interesting one to me.

While the presentation makes it unclear, if that's supposed to be a knock on evolution, it really isn't. Evolution isn't a theory about how life originated in the first place. It's a theory about how life, after coming to be, developed complexity.

Abiogenesis is a completely separate theory and rather more uncertain than evolution.

There are two errors (in my view) that those who try to "invalidate" scientific theory about life engage in: 1. conflating evolution, abiogenesis and general cosmology into one, big theory (which they dub "evolution") and 2. making the implicit assertion that if "science" doesn't know something, it doesn't know anything. That is, if you can find one thing that science is relatively uncertain on or has no current answer for, it invalidates the whole endeavour.
 
I like how one of the sources was about using computer to calculate how to make a cell, and the possibility was zero! and the citing was from 1966. High-tech computers huh?:biglaugh:
 
2. making the implicit assertion that if "science" doesn't know something, it doesn't know anything. That is, if you can find one thing that science is relatively uncertain on or has no current answer for, it invalidates the whole endeavour.

Look, in the 18th century we didn't know how to make jet-fighter planes that can use lasers and GPS satellites that use relativity, therefore we'd never be able to figure that kind of stuff out...
 
One of the big misunderstandings about evolution is that it is purposeful. What I mean is, the final result is not planned. We evolved into what we are, not because it is the only way it could have happened, but only because it is the way it did happen. So for the examples about the tornado at the junk yard, or the explosion at the printing press, the final result didnt have to be a 747 and a dictionary. It could also be a battleship, or a car, or Les Miserables or One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish. The possibilities of what could have been created are limitless.
 
But being serious, the probability of all that stuff happening is just like they say, HOWEVER that's why it's so amazing! 5 billion years is a LONG time. And there is new evidence to suggest that yes you can get proteins to start from nothing.
 
They even constructed a model of a large computer

Out of what, cardboard?

barfo
 
They had Ducktape and Abacus to work with.

Don't be silly, duct tape was far too expensive to use on computers.
 
One of the big misunderstandings about evolution is that it is purposeful. What I mean is, the final result is not planned. We evolved into what we are, not because it is the only way it could have happened, but only because it is the way it did happen. So for the examples about the tornado at the junk yard, or the explosion at the printing press, the final result didnt have to be a 747 and a dictionary. It could also be a battleship, or a car, or Les Miserables or One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish. The possibilities of what could have been created are limitless.

I think the analogies show that it is improbable that something highly ordered, like a cell, could manifest itself out of chaos; not that the pupose for a tornado is to make a jet or an explosion's purpose to make a book.
 
Last edited:
I've also heard recently that bacteria and virii may have driven each other to improve faster than they would have left alone.
 
Just tell her that Jesus would want her to save you by sleeping with you.

That is too obvious. Women do not work like that. He just needs to tell her that if she can make him say "Oh god, oh god, ohhh" he will consider her point. Make her believe it's her idea.
 
I think the analogies show that it is improbable that something highly ordered, like a cell, could manifest itself out of chaos; not that the pupose for a tornado is to make a jet or an explosion's purpose to make a book.

Agreed, that's the explicit point of the analogies, but the analogy always uses a highly specific complex item (IMO) in order to make it seem even more improbable...what're the chances that a tornado would produce precisely an airplane?

I think it generally does suggest a misunderstanding, like a human being was the "desired" outcome and what an amazing coincidence that human beings were produced. Evolution could have produced something completely different and those beings would have been wondering "What are the chances that WE, of all things, would be produced?"

It's related (though this has nothing to do with evolution, it's a separate branch of science) to the people saying that the chances of such a perfectly ordered universe for life to arise are close to zero. That is true if reality only had one shot at it. But if universes are being created and destroyed constantly, then only the ones with the right conditions would produce life who could wonder. It's like the lottery winner....the lottery winner can be amazed at the chances that he/she won, but it's not amazing that someone won. We just happen to be in one of the universes with the right conditions....which is the only way it could be. We couldn't have existed to be disappointed in a "bad" universe.

That's true of evolution to. We happen to be creatures created who can wonder. If not us, some other creatures and then they would wonder.
 
While the presentation makes it unclear, if that's supposed to be a knock on evolution, it really isn't. Evolution isn't a theory about how life originated in the first place. It's a theory about how life, after coming to be, developed complexity.

Abiogenesis is a completely separate theory and rather more uncertain than evolution.

There are two errors (in my view) that those who try to "invalidate" scientific theory about life engage in: 1. conflating evolution, abiogenesis and general cosmology into one, big theory (which they dub "evolution") and 2. making the implicit assertion that if "science" doesn't know something, it doesn't know anything. That is, if you can find one thing that science is relatively uncertain on or has no current answer for, it invalidates the whole endeavour.

I made no comment about evolution. What interests me is that scientists cannot create conditions in a lab where life spontaneously is created.
 
I made no comment about evolution. What interests me is that scientists cannot create conditions in a lab where life spontaneously is created.

I know you didn't, but the original presentation made it unclear whether it was tying uncertainty over how life began to evolution.

Though, it isn't too surprising to me that they can't create the conditions in the lab. If this happened via abiogenesis, there could have been millions of factors involved and billions of years involved. Not everything in nature can be recreated in the lab--at least at a given level of technology. Scientists are now creating life from inert materials, at the atomic level, something that couldn't remotely be done in a lab even 20 years ago. That isn't "spontaneous" of course, but it goes to show that just because humans can't or couldn't do it in the lab, it isn't/wasn't possible. Nature has a lot more resources and enough time to overcome the lack of central direction.
 
I know you didn't, but the original presentation made it unclear whether it was tying uncertainty over how life began to evolution.

Though, it isn't too surprising to me that they can't create the conditions in the lab. If this happened via abiogenesis, there could have been millions of factors involved and billions of years involved. Not everything in nature can be recreated in the lab--at least at a given level of technology. Scientists are now creating life from inert materials, at the atomic level, something that couldn't remotely be done in a lab even 20 years ago. That isn't "spontaneous" of course, but it goes to show that just because humans can't or couldn't do it in the lab, it isn't/wasn't possible. Nature has a lot more resources and enough time to overcome the lack of central direction.

Spontaneous creation of life in a lab would be huge. It should make anyone believe that life isn't a rare thing (we've found life on one planet/moon out of hundreds in our solar system).

They're not creating artificial life in labs from scratch. The most recent thing I've seen is a claim of artificially created life, but they used existing biological materials to create it and more importantly, they used an existing cell to inject the custom DNA. I think we've been customizing DNA of plants and animals for centuries through selective breeding, so doing it in the lab is only a more efficient means to that end, not the creation of actual life.
 
They're not creating artificial life in labs from scratch. The most recent thing I've seen is a claim of artificially created life, but they used existing biological materials to create it and more importantly, they used an existing cell to inject the custom DNA. I think we've been customizing DNA of plants and animals for centuries through selective breeding, so doing it in the lab is only a more efficient means to that end, not the creation of actual life.

More recently, they've been building new life from scratch, using the chemical components of DNA. This is very different from customizing the DNA of existing life, which has been done for a while.
 
More recently, they've been building new life from scratch, using the chemical components of DNA. This is very different from customizing the DNA of existing life, which has been done for a while.

The chemical components of DNA are existing biological materials.

The DNA (in the recent breakthrough) was completely sequenced by computer.
 
Abiogenesis is a completely separate theory and rather more uncertain than evolution.


separate but possibly very closely related. some intert compounds do self-replicate with variation. it's possible the general form of the mechanisms that drive evolution today might have also been responsible for abiogenesis. in fact the point where life "began" may be subjective, or smeared out over millions of years.
 
Yes and no. More so, she's been trying to convince me the bible is fact and the word of 'god.' -- I don't believe a single word of whats written an any holy book/bible.

hopefully she's not trying to convince you the bible is fact by using the arguments in your OP
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top