Doubting Darwin

[Jason]

[quote name='BigFresh']Believe it or not, we've got a pretty good picture of all of these things. The Miller/Urey experiments (and subsequent, more complex ones) went a long way to show just how organic, replicatory compounds can arise from inorganic material in the proper conditions - ie an anaerobic environment like that on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. We've learned that life, in its simplest sense, is really just chemistry. and reproduction is based on chemical necessity. In fact, some have likened the reproduction of complex organisms to a simple, preprogrammed propinsity to continue the sequence.[/quote]

Here's the thing. In those experiments they synthesized amino acids. Then they took amino acids and synthesized protiens.

Critical note on amino acids: all but one amino acid (the simplest - glycine) come in 2 forms, or isomers. These isomers are chemically identical, but structurally different. They are mirror images of each other. They are called L-isomers and D-isomers.

In those experiments, when the charge was added to the chemical pool, an equal number of L and D isomers were created.

Here's the fun part. In [b]EVERY PROTEIN, IN EVERY LIVING ORGANISM, ALL OF THE AMINO ACIDS ARE THE L-ISOMER[/b]. The SIMPLEST protein is composed of [b]40[/b] amino acids.

Now, if we assume that the conditions in nature were the same as in the experiment (which was the goal of the experiment, so that is a somewhat valid assumption) the odds of a protein being created from a pool of amino acids that is composed ENTIRELY of L-isomers is 2 to the 40th power. That is a HUGE number. over 1 trillion.

So, the odds of that occurring are less than 1 in a trillion. And that is for one SIMPLE protein. To make DNA? Please! That is a HUGE molecule. The odds of making that from a pool of chemicals, with ALL L-ISOMERS as occurs in nature is OFF THE CHARTS!

But I have other problems with evolution. Our "ancestors" reproduced asexually, they divided. For two similar, but different (male and female) creatures to evolve by random chance with the proper "parts" to reproduce sexually is unbelievable.

Not to mention a brain. Or an eye. All from a single cell, which had a DNA designed to REPRODUCE ITSELF!

Pretty amazing. In fact, unbelievable.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jason' date='Feb 3 2005, 07:21 AM'][quote name='BigFresh']Believe it or not, we've got a pretty good picture of all of these things. The Miller/Urey experiments (and subsequent, more complex ones) went a long way to show just how organic, replicatory compounds can arise from inorganic material in the proper conditions - ie an anaerobic environment like that on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. We've learned that life, in its simplest sense, is really just chemistry. and reproduction is based on chemical necessity. In fact, some have likened the reproduction of complex organisms to a simple, preprogrammed propinsity to continue the sequence.[/quote]

Here's the thing. In those experiments they synthesized amino acids. Then they took amino acids and synthesized protiens.

Critical note on amino acids: all but one amino acid (the simplest - glycine) come in 2 forms, or isomers. These isomers are chemically identical, but structurally different. They are mirror images of each other. They are called L-isomers and D-isomers.

In those experiments, when the charge was added to the chemical pool, an equal number of L and D isomers were created.

Here's the fun part. In [b]EVERY PROTEIN, IN EVERY LIVING ORGANISM, ALL OF THE AMINO ACIDS ARE THE L-ISOMER[/b]. The SIMPLEST protein is composed of [b]40[/b] amino acids.

Now, if we assume that the conditions in nature were the same as in the experiment (which was the goal of the experiment, so that is a somewhat valid assumption) the odds of a protein being created from a pool of amino acids that is composed ENTIRELY of L-isomers is 2 to the 40th power. That is a HUGE number. over 1 trillion.

So, the odds of that occurring are less than 1 in a trillion. And that is for one SIMPLE protein. To make DNA? Please! That is a HUGE molecule. The odds of making that from a pool of chemicals, with ALL L-ISOMERS as occurs in nature is OFF THE CHARTS!

But I have other problems with evolution. Our "ancestors" reproduced asexually, they divided. For two similar, but different (male and female) creatures to evolve by random chance with the proper "parts" to reproduce sexually is unbelievable.

Not to mention a brain. Or an eye. All from a single cell, which had a DNA designed to REPRODUCE ITSELF!

Pretty amazing. In fact, unbelievable.
[right][post="42518"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
[/quote]
It is downright unbelievable to me also.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BigFresh' date='Feb 3 2005, 03:11 AM'][b]Bunghole wrote[/b]
[color="green"]Biggie Fresh-
The funniest thing of all is that while what you say is true, we have no idea what provides the "spark" for life to start it's evolutionary process, ie, what compelled the first single-celled organism to reproduce, what made the amphibious become halfway land-dweller, etc.[/color]

Believe it or not, we've got a pretty good picture of all of these things.  The Miller/Urey experiments (and subsequent, more complex ones) went a long way to show just how organic, replicatory compounds can arise from inorganic material in the proper conditions - [i]ie[/i] an anaerobic environment like that on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago.  We've learned that life, in its simplest sense, is really just chemistry. and reproduction is based on chemical necessity.  In fact, some have likened the reproduction of complex organisms to a simple, preprogrammed propinsity to continue the sequence.

We have an interesting fossil and geologic (sedimentary) record that explains what environmental conditions necessitate a population's drastic adaptation; the waterborne to become the amphibious and landborne, and the other way around. (cetaceans, etc.) 

[color="green"]It is the same way with star formation. We know the spectral compositions, we know whether it's spectrum is blue or red-shifted, we can calculate how far away it is, it's luminosity, we can identify potential areas of cosmic dust that are conducive to the formation of proto-stars...and yet, we are not really sure what compells the morass of atoms, minerals and dust to begin gravitiational collapse to trigger hydrogen fusion.[/color]

We have also observed stars being born in the great forges of our galaxy.  We have excellent computer simulations that can illustrate how subatomic particles congeal to form stars - as well as a good picture of how and at what point a mass of particles becomes so dense and massive that its insides begin fusing atoms together or - if not enough mass is present  - stays cool and dormant as a brown dwarf.

[color="green"]I am a neo-evolutionist.  To me, star formation enhances my faith in a Greater Being, call it God or whatever you like.[/color]

Could you tell me what attributes you give the Greater Being.  Also, why does star formation enhance your faith in the GB?

[color="green"]Faith in God is the antithesis of empirical data, which is why science eschews His/Her/It's existence, because it cannot either prove nor disprove it, so science ignores it.[/color]

I've never thought of science as ignoring God.  In a sense, though, I see what you mean.  Since science has no need of God in the first place - and there is no reason to suggest its existence, you could say it goes beyond even ignoring.  Then again, since almost everyone is aware of the existence of God-belief... weird.  I never thought of it like that at all.

[color="green"]It is called faith, and I certainly am no religious nut and have deep respect for the advances science has perpetuated upon humankind, and continues to do so.
But I hold an intrinsic belief (call it faith, if you must) that we were not meant to figure out everything about ourselves and our surroundings in the ultimate sense.[/color]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?  What about people like me who don't believe this way - where do we fit in to the picture?  Are there consequences for the absence of this belief?

[color="green"]While I concede to the extremely rapid development of technology within the last 100 years or so, traveling to a distant star that might have other life-forms is such a daunting possibility that I just don't see us cracking that nut anytime soon, or ever, since we'll probably kill ourselves before something that magnificent ever happens.[/color]

A somewhat saddening and all-too-realistic view.  I wonder, if we weren't so damn busy killing ourselves, maybe we WOULD be able to develop the technology to get out there.

[color="green"]And who is to say that the Laws Of Physics as we know them even apply to unimaginably distant places in our universe?[/color]

We just can't know right now... and you make a very interesting point.

[color="green"]We are a mote of dust on the ass of the milky Way, let alone the Universe.  We have sent unmanned robots to Mars...YAY!  We are so far from interstellar travel it isn't even worth mentioning...we don't even understand our own solar system fully yet!
OK, I'm rambling, but I believe my point was made.  Science is in the business of eliminating uncertainties, and there is no laboratory experiment on Earth that can possibly cover every base.  So the argument remains undecided.[/color]

Great post, Bunghole!  Maybe we should start a cosmology/astronomy/physics post.  This stuff is fun to talk about.
[right][post="42502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Astronomy is a vastly overlooked, important arm of scientific research, the most important, IMHO.
It is no coincedence that in this country we have a boner pill and a hair pill before we have a cure for cancer or AIDS.
If we set our minds and sights to the cosmos like we devote our resources to a better, faster and more efficient way to kill each other, we could accomplish much.
We will need to vacate this planet within the next 1,000 years if we continue to pollute like we do (or live underground, or in domed cities...).
So I think forward thinking peoples would want to start developing the technology and resources necessary to colonize other planets/realms.
Not to mention greater knowledge of the Living Universe around us (which to me, [i][b]IS[/b][/i] God) would result and we would then better understand ourselves and our origins.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 2 2005, 09:40 AM']Interesting read.

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/"]Click Here[/url]
[right][post="42153"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
You've sparked a hell of a thread, my dude...

[Jamie_B]

I can't believe I read the whole thing

Here is another "read" on this very debate. That offers point and counter point. (I havent read it all yet by the way I just finished this long thread. :Edit: Read it, Interesting as well.) (By the way bung I agree with you)

[url="http://www.stnews.org/archives/2004_december/books_authors_1204.html"]Click here[/url]


Here is a blog on [url="http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2004/02/23/defending_the_wedge"]"The Wedge"[/url]

[Jamie_B]

Also let me offer this as a theroy (notice the lower case j/k)

If any of you have read the book of Revolation it talks about fires that destroy the earth ... We know that a giant meator is heading towards us and we know that there is a good possibility they could create these great fires.


I had a science teacher that said it to me like this once, and I tend to agree.

"Maybee juuuuuust maybee, science is explaining the things in the Bible that men who didnt have the tools during biblical times that we do today, couldnt explain but were not wrong in their assumptions." (Assuming you dont take everything in the Bible as literal)

[Guest steggyD]

Here in order according to Genesis, God's creation:

1)Heaven and the Earth (I'm guessing with water already)
2)Light and he divided it from the dark
3)Firmament (heaven? atmosphere? someone plz explain this to me)
4)Dry land
5)Grass, herb-yielding seed, fruits
6)Lights in the firmament, I'm believing the sun and the moon and stars
7)Sea life and birds
8)Living land creatures, cattle, creeping things, etc.
9)Man, who had dominion over the animals
10)Not sure on this one, but it seems that God breathed soul into his nostrils afterwards or was this at the same time?

Now, for the important parts, after God created the heavens and the earth, and the water and the stars, etc., first came the sea creatures. Now according to evolution, is this not correct? Then came the land creatures. This is when the sea creatures adapted to the ground. Then came mankind, how has adapted to rul over the other creatures. Then, to me it seems the more recent form of human gained the soul or maybe the conscious or whatever you would like to call it.

To me, it seems as if creationism almost goes hand in hand with evolution. It is just that Genesis summed it up and put in "7 days". But like I said before, who defined these days before God even put a sun and a moon in the sky? And as for big bang theory. Everything came from a certain point. This exploded into rocks flying through the sky. We now know that supernovas are created by gases in the galaxies. This makes light. So, actually, I'd say the entire creation of the universe is talked about in Genesis from even a scientific point of view.

[|Bunghole|]

I often think along those same lines.
7 days to a Creature like God could very well be 4 billion years to us mortals.
I think a particularly applicable Biblical passage (and one of my favorites) goes something like:
"Things that are impossible for Man are possible for God."
I like to think of God as a director of a cosmic movie, who allows His/Her/It's creations to ad-lib their way through the production.
A guider, a setter-of-things-in-motion, a divine presence...but not an interferer.
I read a book once (can't recall the title ot author) that postulated that God was a cosmic traveler to the far reaches of the Universe, manifesting Himself/Herself/Itself in physical form as a fellow being to whatever particular planet God was visiting(alien Jesus), inspiring alien-life to write a species-specific Bible of their own, and spreading love and goodwill amongst whatever kind of life-form He/She/It happened to be associating with...and then leaving, promising an eventual return...I really liked that idea, it's kinda hard to explain...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Feb 3 2005, 03:01 PM']Here in order according to Genesis, God's creation:

1)Heaven and the Earth (I'm guessing with water already)
2)Light and he divided it from the dark
3)Firmament (heaven? atmosphere? someone plz explain this to me)
4)Dry land
5)Grass, herb-yielding seed, fruits
6)Lights in the firmament, I'm believing the sun and the moon and stars
7)Sea life and birds
8)Living land creatures, cattle, creeping things, etc.
9)Man, who had dominion over the animals
10)Not sure on this one, but it seems that God breathed soul into his nostrils afterwards or was this at the same time?

Now, for the important parts, after God created the heavens and the earth, and the water and the stars, etc., first came the sea creatures. Now according to evolution, is this not correct? Then came the land creatures. This is when the sea creatures adapted to the ground. Then came mankind, how has adapted to rul over the other creatures. Then, to me it seems the more recent form of human gained the soul or maybe the conscious or whatever you would like to call it.

To me, it seems as if creationism almost goes hand in hand with evolution. It is just that Genesis summed it up and put in "7 days". But like I said before, who defined these days before God even put a sun and a moon in the sky? And as for big bang theory. Everything came from a certain point. This exploded into rocks flying through the sky. We now know that supernovas are created by gases in the galaxies. This makes light. So, actually, I'd say the entire creation of the universe is talked about in Genesis from even a scientific point of view.
[right][post="42617"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]


So does that mean that the book of Revelations, might be a fortell into our future? A curious thought.

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 3 2005, 03:56 PM'] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]
So does that mean that the book of Revelations, might be a fortell into our future? A curious thought.
[right][post="42640"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Might?

Here's an interesting fact. Every other biblical prophecy came true.

Read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 some time.

Then remember that those were written 100s of years before crucufixion was even invented!

[sean]

[quote name='Jason' date='Feb 3 2005, 03:07 PM']Might?

Here's an interesting fact.  Every other biblical prophecy came true.

Read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 some time.

Then remember that those were written 100s of years before crucufixion was even invented!
[right][post="42644"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

But they were translated into the King James version in the 1500's. The Catholic church was all powerful and mostly corrupt back then. I haven't seen previous versions of the Bible , so I speak from ignorance, but I have little "faith" in the Catholic church. Even if there intention were honorable, they knew of crucifixion and could have interpreted the words as such.

[Jason]

[quote name='sean' date='Feb 3 2005, 04:41 PM']But they were translated into the King James version in the 1500's. The Catholic church was all powerful and mostly corrupt back then. I haven't seen previous versions of the Bible , so I speak from ignorance, but I have little "faith" in the Catholic church. Even if there intention were honorable, they knew of crucifixion and could have interpreted the words as such.
[right][post="42656"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

The modern versions were not retranslations of the KJV. In fact, the modern versions are even more reliable. They are based on older documents (dead sea scrolls). The modern versions are translated from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. The NIV was translated by a group of 100 linguistic scholars of several denominations.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="blue"][b]Hey now that we are quoting biblical verses .......


Some of my favorite [/b][/color]



[b](Deuteronomy 22:28-29)[/b]

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.




[b](Exodus 21:7-11)[/b]

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.




[b](Exodus 21:20-21)[/b]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.




[b](Leviticus 25:44-46)[/b]

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.



[b](Leviticus 20:13)[/b]

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."




[b](Deuteronomy 22:20-21)[/b]

But if this charge is true and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.



[color="green"][b]God is such a swell guy [/b][/color]

[|Bunghole|]

It figures you'd pick verses like that...

[Jamie_B]

I didnt really intend for this to be a preachy thread, if it was taken that way Im sorry. It was just something that I read and found interesting. Ill just say this, understand the differences between the old and new testament. Not going to go into it and turn this into another thread in which people preach at each other. I just saw a article where science is being challanged by other science and as Bung said earlier it strengthened my faith, and wanted to share it, thats all not a sermon. If we want to talk about the science of all this Im cool with that, as I dont know everything about it and the things that have been talked about I found interesting. But lets not make this a your God vs my God thread, please.

[sean]

My God would kick your God's ass!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

Has anyone read the book "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown, he also wrote the Da Vinci Code(which is being made into a movie starring Tom Hanks)? The storyline deals with this issue, it unites science and religion. In the book a scientist who also is a priest creates a substance that he feels is can prove creation. The book is very fast pace and it's a easy read.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Feb 4 2005, 05:35 PM']Has anyone read the book "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown, he also wrote the Da Vinci Code(which is being made into a movie starring Tom Hanks)?  The storyline deals with this issue, it unites science and religion.  In the book a scientist who also is a priest creates a substance that he feels is can prove creation.  The book is very fast pace and it's a easy read.
[right][post="43053"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Cant say I have, but Ive heard both books are good reads.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 4 2005, 03:25 PM']I didnt really intend for this to be a preachy thread, if it was taken that way Im sorry. It was just something that I read and found interesting. Ill just say this, understand the differences between the old and new testament. Not going to go into it and turn this into another thread in which people preach at each other. I just saw a article where science is being challanged by other science and as Bung said earlier it strengthened my faith, and wanted to share it, thats all not a sermon. If we want to talk about the science of all this Im cool with that, as I dont know everything about it and the things that have been talked about I found interesting. But lets not make this a your God vs my God thread, please.
[right][post="43020"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

these threads have minds of thier own...

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 4 2005, 04:38 PM']Cant say I have, but Ive heard both books are good reads.
[right][post="43055"][/post][/right][/quote]


I recommend them both, not sure if my recommendation means anything to anyone here.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Feb 4 2005, 06:01 PM']I recommend them both, not sure if my recommendation means anything to anyone here.       
[right][post="43065"][/post][/right][/quote]


Hey as long as its not a recomindation about politics.

[jza10304]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 4 2005, 06:04 PM']Hey as long as its not a recomindation about politics. 
[right][post="43066"][/post][/right][/quote]
I got your back Smoov

[sean]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Feb 4 2005, 04:35 PM']Has anyone read the book "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown, he also wrote the Da Vinci Code(which is being made into a movie starring Tom Hanks)?  The storyline deals with this issue, it unites science and religion.  In the book a scientist who also is a priest creates a substance that he feels is can prove creation.  The book is very fast pace and it's a easy read.
[right][post="43053"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Awesome books!! Read each in 3 days.

Greg Iles has good books as well.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050204/sack.jpg[/img]

[BigFresh]

[quote name='Jason' date='Feb 3 2005, 03:07 PM']Might?

Here's an interesting fact.  Every other biblical prophecy came true.

Read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 some time.

Then remember that those were written 100s of years before crucufixion was even invented!
[right][post="42644"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Seriously... are you trying to suggest that the bible contains prophecy... and that the prophecy came true? Please give good reasons for thinking that.

You alluded to passages Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Why do those particular chapters - accepted by the council of Nicae - allude to anything in the present, or recorded history. How are they prophecy and how have those prophecies been evidenced?


In fact, how do have you or anyone come to the conclusion that the Christian bible contains "prophecy" at all, and how do you conclude that said prophecy has been realized by acceptable acounts?