Looking for Evidence for Atheistic Evolution

[RocksInMyHead]

I might go into it, but right now my head is filled with new information from watching Kent Hovinds videos.

Hovind is a hack. He's very good at sounding like he knows what he's talking about, which makes him appeal to Christians who aren't well-versed in science, but pretty much everything he says breaks down under scrutiny.

Anyway, here is a sample of real C-14 data from the atmosphere: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm, those data show that C-14 content in the atmosphere vary extremely much between months in the year (see end of the webpage for some data). Not really the simplicity of data that I had hoped for.

That article shows the effects of nuclear testing on atmospheric C-14 (hence the sharp rise in the '60s and the steady logarithmic decay curve after). This is a known factor in C-14 dating and is very easy to correct mathematically.

Radioactive dating is also used to validate that rock layers have millions of years between them. At least, the lower layers seem older than the upper layers. So you would jump to a conclusion and say that those layers are formed over millions of years. But mr Hovind posted a really strong counterevidence to that, namely finding trees that cross those layers. That would be simply impossible if those layers were really millions of years in between themselves. That makes me turn back on the radioactive dating method and ask, is there some twist to the dating method that we do not know?

There was a great thread on polystrate fossils a few years ago. Short version: they occur in areas of rapid subsidence and sedimentation (such as river deltas) or in volcanic environments where they are buried quickly by ash falls in rapid succession.

 

[PeterDona]

If you want to learn any science, watching videos by Hovind is more than a waste of time. There's you time you spend on the video, and then there's the time you have to spend unlearning most of what he says.

There is an interesting debate here:

, where Hovind directly confronts a geologist. I would like to see more debates between mr Hovind and geologists or paleontologists. It is interesting that the geologist Dr Hilpman does not deny Hovinds explanations on radiometric dating. Hilpman would have all the opportunity to do just that, right there. But he does not. That actually builds credibility to the Hovind explanation.

 

[bhsmte]

There is an interesting debate here:

, where Hovind directly confronts a geologist. I would like to see more debates between mr Hovind and geologists or paleontologists. It is interesting that the geologist Dr Hilpman does not deny Hovinds explanations on radiometric dating. Hilpman would have all the opportunity to do just that, right there. But he does not. That actually builds credibility to the Hovind explanation.

Maybe they can visit Hovind in prison, for these debates.

 

[PeterDona]

Hovind is a hack. He's very good at sounding like he knows what he's talking about, which makes him appeal to Christians who aren't well-versed in science, but pretty much everything he says breaks down under scrutiny.

Such as scrutiny done on this forum?

That article shows the effects of nuclear testing on atmospheric C-14 (hence the sharp rise in the '60s and the steady logarithmic decay curve after). This is a known factor in C-14 dating and is very easy to correct mathematically.
Yes, however those data looked much like the data that I remember from the scientific research that I was involved in when doing my thesis in molecular biology. Pretty messy data, pointing in all sorts of directions, or maybe in no direction, and then you have to make sense of those data, and how do you do that? That is why I say, I would like to go and see some raw data, instead of just the finetuned conclusions. Raw data are hardly published these days, even in the scientific journals.

There was a great thread on polystrate fossils a few years ago. Short version: they occur in areas of rapid subsidence and sedimentation (such as river deltas) or in volcanic environments where they are buried quickly by ash falls in rapid succession.
Yes, I realize that this is a great forum. I wish I had been here already 5 or 10 years ago.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

How is it that you can affirm aqueous depositional regimes, but in the same paragraph dismiss a single global flood. What compels you to do that?

There are structures, fossils, and other features that we expect to see in rocks deposited in aqueous environments. We see these features in many locations, so we can assume that the rocks in those locations were deposited in an aqueous environment. If there was a global flood, there are certain things we would expect to see that just aren't there. A massive global unconformity (break in the geologic record), for example, due to the erosion from so much water. We see local and even continental unconformities, but none are global. We would also expect to see huge, jumbled up fossil beds full of modern species mixed with extinct species (aka dinosaurs, paleozoic creatures, precambiran creatures, etc), and those just flat out don't exist.

I was intrigued by your use of the word 'strict stratification'. See, mr Hovind contends with this on most of his videos, and says that stratification is far from strict. Parrots were found with dinosaurs, and many other animals that are still alive. This is evidence against the idea that layers should represent geological ages. Also, sometimes layers are switched. So it would be interesting to go deeper into the evidence and ask, is stratification really strict or not.

There have been fossils of birds similar to modern avian species found in very late Cretaceous rocks. That's hardly an issue since we know that birds evolved in the Cretaceous. And there's nothing that says that a species must undergo significant changes over time, even millions of years. Look at crocodiles or the tuatara, for example. If the species is already well-adapted to its niche, it has no need to change as long as that niche exists.

If layers are out of order in a location, then it's either due to a geologic structure (fold, fault, etc) or misidentification of the layer (pretty easy to do in some situations if you don't have index fossils or radiometric ages for the rocks).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Such as scrutiny done on this forum?

Pretty sure there have been a ton of posts refuting most of Hovind's claims on here, but I don't really have time to dig them up right now. Been too long since I watched anything by him for me to try to counter his arguments off the top of my head.

Yes, however those data looked much like the data that I remember from the scientific research that I was involved in when doing my thesis in molecular biology. Pretty messy data, pointing in all sorts of directions, or maybe in no direction, and then you have to make sense of those data, and how do you do that? That is why I say, I would like to go and see some raw data, instead of just the finetuned conclusions. Raw data are hardly published these days, even in the scientific journals.

On the contrary, that was pretty clean data. The only messy part was the spike in the '60s, which is easily explained by the rise of atomic testing. After the 60's, the data follows a very clear logarithmic decay curve (exactly what you'd expect when plotting the concentration of a radioactive isotope over time). It doesn't get much better than that.

 

[sfs]

There is an interesting debate here:

, where Hovind directly confronts a geologist. I would like to see more debates between mr Hovind and geologists or paleontologists. It is interesting that the geologist Dr Hilpman does not deny Hovinds explanations on radiometric dating. Hilpman would have all the opportunity to do just that, right there. But he does not. That actually builds credibility to the Hovind explanation.

Which is why scientists shouldn't debate people like Hovind. It's a terrible format for explaining science, and it gives unwarranted credibility to people who shouldn't get it.

 

[whois]

Regardless of what this is about, i'm not going to bother to find out, pointing out errors of certain scientists is not going to advance your religious case.

i'll give you 50 million dollars if you find one single post of mine that says "god did it".

 

[PeterDona]

On the contrary, that was pretty clean data. The only messy part was the spike in the '60s, which is easily explained by the rise of atomic testing. After the 60's, the data follows a very clear logarithmic decay curve (exactly what you'd expect when plotting the concentration of a radioactive isotope over time). It doesn't get much better than that.

I would like to go and study some raw data with you. Then we could have a better discussion. E.g. some data on CO2 levels over the last 40-50 years, every month.

Which is why scientists shouldn't debate people like Hovind. It's a terrible format for explaining science, and it gives unwarranted credibility to people who shouldn't get it.

Well, then I would rather ask you to propose a format that would satisfy the scientist. I am sure that mr Hovind and others would be happy to go to reason, and look into the data.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

558888880--
ds781]

How is it that you can affirm aqueous depositional regimes, but in the same paragraph dismiss a single global flood. What compels you to do that?

I think you would agree that we are not currently experiencing a global Flood. And yet aqueous depositional regimes still dominate. This is because the Earth is 71% covered by water. Given the fact that a global Flood is not required to explain the current dominance of aqueous depositional environments, explain why you think it is most parsimonious to invoke a Global Flood to explain this same dominance of aqueous depositional environments in the rock record.

I was intrigued by your use of the word 'strict stratification'. See, mr Hovind contends with this on most of his videos, and says that stratification is far from strict. Parrots were found with dinosaurs, and many other animals that are still alive. This is evidence against the idea that layers should represent geological ages. Also, sometimes layers are switched. So it would be interesting to go deeper into the evidence and ask, is stratification really strict or not.

Firstly, there are doubts about the psittaciform identification attributed to that Cretaceous "parrot". See here for a short letter to Nature and a rebuttal, and from this more recent summary (behind a pay wall) we get this conclusion:

Clearly, the debate continues about this “Cretaceous parrot” and more avian material needs to be found in Cretaceous beds before it can be established with any certainty that derived land-birds such as the Psittaciformes existed in pre-Tertiary times.

This doesn't actually affect the argument I'm making, I just thought you should be aware, if you aren't already, that it is unwise to accept without fact-checking the claims Hovind makes.

Secondly, there is a very great deal of strict biological stratification in the rock record. If that dentary really is a parrot, then the psittaciform lineage gets pushed back 15Ma, but you still never find a bird in the fossil record prior to the appearance of dinosaurs in the Triassic. And you never find dinosaurs prior to the appearance of diapsids in the Pennsylvanian. And you never find diapsids prior to the appearance of tetrapods in the Devonian. And you never find tetrapods prior to the appearance of gnathostomes in the Silurian (or possibly the Ordovician). And you never find gnathostomes prior to the appearance of chordates in the Cambrian.

That makes a lot of sense if they are part of a nested hierarchy. Birds are a subset of dinosaurs which are a subset of diapsids which are a subset of tetrapods which are a subset of gnathostomes which are a subset of chordates. They never appear in the fossil record in a different order because the earlier groups gave rise to the later groups. The nature of the fossil record means that certain lineages will have their ranges changed in response to new discoveries, but the pattern does not change. And of course I have only mentioned the very large-scale pattern seen in vertebrates. The invertebrate fossil record is just as damning for the Floodist view.

Evolution explains this stratification very well. How is this strict order explained (let alone better explained) by a Global Flood? If you wish to invoke those Floodist mechanisms of ecological zonation, differential escape and hydroligical sorting I will be happy to illustrate how thoroughly they fail to explain the fossil record with numerous examples.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. I never said you did.
2. I never said they don't
3. I don't know where you're getting that from
4. No, he was, that's what I was trying to show you, I'm glad you agree that's a problem.
5. If you don't like that number you can go and check it out, calculate it yourself, doesn't really matter. The truth is that the formation life is unlikely. If you don't like that number I won't lose a day of sleep over it. I don't like it either. I personally think it's a 1 in 0 chance. Undefined.

Where is the science backing up your claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

In other words, one can never fully trust science.

In other words, you reject the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would like to go and study some raw data with you. Then we could have a better discussion. E.g. some data on CO2 levels over the last 40-50 years, every month.

We have 14C levels for the last 50k years:

http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/LakeVarveCalibrationA.jpg

The straight diagonal line represents no change in 14C, so there were small deviations from a steady state system. However, 14C has pretty much stayed the same within 20% or so.

You can get all of the raw data and info at the CALIB site.

http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/

Well, then I would rather ask you to propose a format that would satisfy the scientist. I am sure that mr Hovind and others would be happy to go to reason, and look into the data.

It is the same format that has existed for 200 years. It is called "publishing research in peer reviewed journals". There are also scientific conferences where Hovind can present his research at.

Of course, that would require Hovind to do some actual science.

 

[bhsmte]

In other words, you reject the scientific method.

Fundies have no choice, they have to.

 

[Loudmouth]

How is it that you can affirm aqueous depositional regimes, but in the same paragraph dismiss a single global flood. What compels you to do that?

Sudden floods leave very different deposits than calmer waters like lakes. Sudden floods leave large deposits of large grained sediments whereas normal aquatic enviroments have thin fine grained deposits that require calm water and longer time periods. For example, here is a picture of two floods with calmer lake environment in between.

and a closer image of the varves in the middle

Each one of those thin fine grained layers represents a single summer or winter season, with two varves representing a year. The much coarser deposits represent a flood before and after the multiple years represented by the varves.

That is how you tell the difference.

I was intrigued by your use of the word 'strict stratification'. See, mr Hovind contends with this on most of his videos, and says that stratification is far from strict. Parrots were found with dinosaurs, and many other animals that are still alive. This is evidence against the idea that layers should represent geological ages. Also, sometimes layers are switched. So it would be interesting to go deeper into the evidence and ask, is stratification really strict or not.

Hovind lies a lot.

 

[PeterDona]

I think you would agree that we are not currently experiencing a global Flood. And yet aqueous depositional regimes still dominate. This is because the Earth is 71% covered by water. Given the fact that a global Flood is not required to explain the current dominance of aqueous depositional environments, explain why you think it is most parsimonious to invoke a Global Flood to explain this same dominance of aqueous depositional environments in the rock record.

Hmmm, so do we see a lot of fossil creation in these aqueous environments? That would be an interesting question.
Concerning my interest to state the global flood as an explanatory model, of course that is my stated preference, that I am a young earth believer. So just as an old earth can be used as an explanatory model, a young earth plus a flood can work.

This doesn't actually affect the argument I'm making, I just thought you should be aware, if you aren't already, that it is unwise to accept without fact-checking the claims Hovind makes.
OK thanks for giving me the reference. As much as possible, fact checking is nice. However it is a trend that those scientific journals are behind paywalls, and so only accessible from a scientific library or the like.

And of course I have only mentioned the very large-scale pattern seen in vertebrates. The invertebrate fossil record is just as damning for the Floodist view.
Well, there is a bit of observational bias in your description, as you are probably well aware. You see the details that build your pattern, and so corroborate your interpretation, which again make you reinforce your selection of details. So is it the actual data or your interpretation that is damning to to flood theory?

Let me ask a clarifying question: by what mechanism were the different fossil layers layed out, according to an evolutionist view? I guess we should consider specific catastrophic events throughout earth history? And furthermore, how come that those fossil records are found in welldefined locations and not scattered all over, considering that through millions of years the earth landscape would have plenty of time to change? I hope we agree, that normal dead animals do not fossilize, but only if they are rapidly pulled into an anaerobic and chalky environment.

Evolution explains this stratification very well. How is this strict order explained (let alone better explained) by a Global Flood? If you wish to invoke those Floodist mechanisms of ecological zonation, differential escape and hydroligical sorting I will be happy to illustrate how thoroughly they fail to explain the fossil record with numerous examples.
Yah, could be interesting to know some of your objections. However, again take precaution about your bias. Young earth understanding is still in its infancy, not being researched a lot by peer-reviewed research (although it is growing), and so there may be a lot of unanswered questions in the details, as well as models stated that are only roughly correct.

 

[PeterDona]

You can get all of the raw data and info at the CALIB site.

http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/

I will have to spend some time to understand how that site is built and how to draw the data. But a first testing showed at least that there is a lot of data locations available. that is a good thing.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Hmmm, so do we see a lot of fossil creation in these aqueous environments? That would be an interesting question.
Concerning my interest to state the global flood as an explanatory model, of course that is my stated preference, that I am a young earth believer. So just as an old earth can be used as an explanatory model, a young earth plus a flood can work.

I have on many occasions looked for actual data on this, but it is a tricky proposition. The only way to answer this would be to dig up vast amounts of sediment being deposited in rivers, lakes lagoons, open ocean etc. and see what was in there. This is pretty unfeasible, which I assume is why I can't find any numbers. But plants and animals around the world still die in vast numbers every day, and many of them die in or near aqueous environments. It seems reasonable to believe that a certain small proportion of these are being buried via sedimentation and that a certain (even smaller) proportion of those organisms will eventually be fossilized.

And your response has not addressed the question I asked you: Given the fact that a global Flood is not required to explain the current dominance of aqueous depositional environments, why do you think it is most parsimonious to invoke a Global Flood to explain this same dominance of aqueous depositional environments in the rock record? I understand that as a Young Earther that is necessarily your stance, but I'm hoping you can provide a more specific support for believing that the Flood is necessary (or at least a more parsimonious explanation) for the creation of an aqueously-dominated rock record when no such global even is required to create the current aqueously-dominated sedimentation.

And of course I have only mentioned the very large-scale pattern seen in vertebrates. The invertebrate fossil record is just as damning for the Floodist view.
Well, there is a bit of observational bias in your description, as you are probably well aware. You see the details that build your pattern, and so corroborate your interpretation, which again make you reinforce your selection of details. So is it the actual data or your interpretation that is damning to to flood theory?

This is a rather vague response to the basic pattern I put before you. I am not being biased in my data selection when I state that birds have never been found prior to dinosaurs which in turn have never been found prior to diapsids which in turn have never been found prior to tetrapods etc. etc. Again, this makes sense if we accept that the former groups arose from the latter, but very little sense if they all coexisted and were buried by a global Flood. I don't think you can call that pattern an observational bias when there are no known data points to contradict it. So please do explain why a) this pattern is explained by the Flood and, if you can b) why this pattern is better explained by the Flood.

Let me ask a clarifying question: by what mechanism were the different fossil layers layed out, according to an evolutionist view? I guess we should consider specific catastrophic events throughout earth history? And furthermore, how come that those fossil records are found in welldefined locations and not scattered all over, considering that through millions of years the earth landscape would have plenty of time to change? I hope we agree, that normal dead animals do not fossilize, but only if they are rapidly pulled into an anaerobic and chalky environment.

This is a little too nonspecific for me to give a good answer. Fossils can be buried in a variety of sediment types representing a variety of depositional environments. The sediment can be deposited gradually or in catastrophic events like floods (though of course there is no single flood layer covering the world). If I understand your question about fossil distribution correctly, I would answer that the rocks in which fossils are preserved tend to be large scale units that don't get randomly jumbled up with other rock layers. We don't see bits of South American rock unites mixed in with Mongolian rock units, for example.

Yah, could be interesting to know some of your objections. However, again take precaution about your bias. Young earth understanding is still in its infancy, not being researched a lot by peer-reviewed research (although it is growing), and so there may be a lot of unanswered questions in the details, as well as models stated that are only roughly correct.

The relative immaturity of Flood geology could be considered an excuse for why it fails to explain the rock record, but it doesn't seem reasonable to insist that it is correct while admitting that it cannot actually explain what we see.

I can give you a variety of examples that refute the Floodist rescue mechanisms of ecological zonation, differential escape and hydrological sorting if you are interested, but for now we can look at a coral example.

The fossil record shows that scleractinians appeared after rugosans. We never see the former group lower in the rock record than the latter group. But the rocks in which they are preserved show that they lived in the same environments in many of the same parts of the world. There goes ecological zonation or different biogeography as excuses. Clearly differential escape is out of the question because they are sessile organisms. And finally Hydrological sorting fails too because their morphologies overlap broadly as you can see below.

Here are a couple scleractinians:

And here are a couple rugosans:

Note the similarity in morphology (which correspond

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I would like to go and study some raw data with you. Then we could have a better discussion. E.g. some data on CO2 levels over the last 40-50 years, every month.

I'm not sure what the point of that would be. CO2 levels and radiometric dating are completely unrelated, and as I'm not a climate/environmental scientist, I wouldn't really be able to discuss it very competently. My expertise lies in geology and radiometric dating (specifically U-Pb and Rb-Sr).

Concerning my interest to state the global flood as an explanatory model, of course that is my stated preference, that I am a young earth believer. So just as an old earth can be used as an explanatory model, a young earth plus a flood can work.

Making a hypothesis is just the first part of the scientific method. You're free to hypothesize whatever you like - that the Earth is 6000 years old, that the moon is made of green cheese, or that we're all just a bunch of programs living in a hyper-advanced computer - but after that, your hypothesis has to stand up to testing. If observations do not support your hypothesis, it must be revised or discarded in favor of one that is supported by observations.

Well, there is a bit of observational bias in your description, as you are probably well aware. You see the details that build your pattern, and so corroborate your interpretation, which again make you reinforce your selection of details. So is it the actual data or your interpretation that is damning to to flood theory?

Data: we see distinct groupings of organisms in distinct strata with no mixing of species between them. These different assemblages can even be seen in single locations as you move upward through the geologic column. How do you explain multiple ecosystems, sometimes with very different environments, occurring in the same location in the context of a global flood?

Let me ask a clarifying question: by what mechanism were the different fossil layers layed out, according to an evolutionist view? I guess we should consider specific catastrophic events throughout earth history?

Some were formed in locally catastrophic events. Undersea landslides, for example, preserved a lot of oceanic critters. Others formed because conditions just happened to be right - for example, a critter died, landed in mud and was covered rapidly, either because the mud was soft enough or because it happened to die during the rainy season, when a lot of deposition occurs.

And furthermore, how come that those fossil records are found in welldefined locations and not scattered all over, considering that through millions of years the earth landscape would have plenty of time to change?

What do you mean by "scattered all over"? Fossils are found on every continent. The specific locations that we find them are well-defined because people have gone to great effort to locate, map, and define them. I'm positive though that there are many fossil-bearing layers that remain undiscovered -they've eroded away, or have yet to be exposed at the surface, or no one has stumbled across them yet.

I hope we agree, that normal dead animals do not fossilize, but only if they are rapidly pulled into an anaerobic and chalky environment.

This is not the only way to make fossils. Fossils can be preserved in amber (tree sap), in mud, even in sand. It is difficult to make a fossil though, you're right about that. And it's even more difficult for that fossil to survive millions of years of erosion and deformation in order to be found by humans.

Young earth understanding is still in its infancy, not being researched a lot by peer-reviewed research (although it is growing), and so there may be a lot of unanswered questions in the details, as well as models stated that are only roughly correct.

Young Earth Creationism has been around since the 1950s. That's longer than the theory of plate tectonics, which initially enjoyed similar ridicule to YEC but has now become one of the cornerstones of modern geology because the data supported it and the predictions it made matched real-world observations.

 

[oneofshibumi]

Lordking,


I read your post and I believe I am in a good position to give you an honest analysis of the arguments in your essay. I also provide at the end some tips on how to improve your debating skills.


My name is Daniel. I was raised Catholic. As a teen I spiritually choose Daoism (Asian philosophy or religion). My purpose is to improve your debate position.



Lordking wrote: 1) Mathematics vs Evolution: The probability of chance

a) The estimated probability of life forming by chance is 1 in 10^39970th power.


RESPONSE: How can we check on that to see which scientists believe that? I have done several internet searches and I see 1 in 10^39970th power given by The Tackle Box Inc(a). on Facebook.com and David Boarman’s letter to Fox News(b) Help Desk. But this “probability of chance” argument seems to have started in Russia based on the magnitudes given, by Babu G. Ranganathan(c). The basic argument seemed to have originated by British scientist Frederick Hoyle(d) Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out.” Cosmology: Various sources estimate the total number of fundamental particles in the observable universe to be within the range of 1080 to 1085. However, these estimates are generally regarded as guesswork.” Yeah those are some big numbers(e), but we do not have to fear them.


(a)

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=500617519974007

(b) https://www.facebook.com/david.boarman?fref=nf

(c) http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/27-09-2010/115095-atheism-0/

(d) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

(e) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)#1042_to_10100


Moreover, science does not “do” chance, it does or uses probability. The words chance and probability are closely related, but not the same thing. Chance is an everyday word used in a situation where we are talking about an event taking place whereas probability is a precise measurement of that chance. Probability is a special branch of mathematics that helps people decide the percentage of likelihood of an event taking place whereas chances of an event taking place in daily life are merely opinions.”(f)

(f) http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-probability-and-vs-chance/


The word “chance” is not used in science, science uses the mathematical term probability and statistics not luck. The term “chance” comes from the Greek Goddess Tyche(g) (Roman Goddess Fortuna(h)). In Vulgar Latin *cadentia "that which falls out," a term used in dice, from neuter plural of Latin cadens, present participle of cadere "to fall," Old French cheance "accident, chance, fortune, luck, situation, the falling of dice." "to come about, to happen.”


(g) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche

(h) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortuna


The probability of a “life occurring” (abiogenesis) is unknowable at the present time.


The chance of a “life occurring” with our present scientific knowledge is once every 2 and half billion years after the big bang. Life began 3.5 billion years ago. According to the Big Bang the universe started 13.8 billion years ago. Subtract 3.5 billion from 13.8 billion (13.8 – 3.5) equal 10.3 billion years. We have only one example of abiogenesis, earth. So we can say the chance of life occurring 1 in 10.3 billion. However, as a member of a species that has never visited another planet, it would be assumptious (assuming) to believe non-terrestrial life does not exist elsewhere. Also, because of all the unknowns it is impossible to calculate the probability of life occurring.


Lordking wrote: b) My proposal is, if chance were responsible for creation, creation would happen constantly.


In science a proposal needs to be in the form of a question. Permit me to re-write your statement in the form of a question, “If chance were responsible for creation, would creation happen constantly?”


Question for Lordking, do you believe I have clearly, accurately, and precisely converted your statement into a question? Please feel free to re-write the question anyway you wish.


The Cosmic Calendar is a method to visualize the vast history of the universe in which its 13.8 billion year lifetime is condensed down into a single year. In this visualization, the Big Bang took place at the beginning of January 1 at midnight, and the current moment is mapped onto the end of December 31 at midnight. Let us look at a Cosmic Calendar to help visualize the amount of time humans have been around to make predictions and retrodictions.


(h) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

(i) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cosmic_Calendar.png

(j) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction


Lordking wrote, “The Big Bang is not just a religious worldview that gives a viable explanation to an irrational concept.”

RESPONSE: Science is not religion, statements are not made at a whim, and it is a contradiction to think that a viable scientific explanation is irrational.



Lordking wrote: “I understand if you can explain why it did happen and can't happen now, but I'm looking for scientific evidence, including real observations by scientific investigations which explain why creation, without intelligent interaction, only occurred once…”


RESPONSE: The Big Bang theory(k) is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. It states that the universe was in a very high density state and then expanded. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid there is a singularity. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.


(k) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


Similar to an explosion, until all the mass and energy of the universe becomes a “very high density state,” in other words pressed back together again so tight that all space and time in the universe is reduced to the size of a basketball. Then internal pressure becomes so strong the universe and time spews forth once again. Unfortunately the universe is expanding, and every day a little bit faster.


So how does the universe return to the state of the Big Bang again? To understand that would require understanding what created the conditions of the Big Bang.