How did we get our moon?

[Tiberius]

Once again, did you read the question?

It is evolution -- planetary evolution; that's why I put this poll in C&E and not P&LS.

When Internet evolutionists start yakking about evolution, they usually only yak about two kinds of evolution (out of six): [5.] macroevolution and [6.] microevolution.

But in so-doing, they skip over billions of years of:

1. Cosmic Evolution -- the origin of time, space and matter
2. Chemical Evolution -- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution -- the origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution -- the origin of life from non-living material.

A real evolutionist would understand this -- in my opinion; but an Internet evolutionist takes 1-5 above on faith, and 6 on observation.

HA! Since when do you understand anything of what a "real evolutionist" believes?

 

[AV1611VET]

HA! Since when do you understand anything of what a "real evolutionist" believes?

I don't -- but I can tell when 9,000,000,000 years comes up missing in a conversation.

I'm with Mr. Hovind on this one.

When someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I ask, "Which one? Just getting to the most basic form of life is a 1 in 10[sup]340,000,000[/sup] odd, and you're skipping over nine billion years."

If they say, let's just talk about biological evolution, then I ask them if they realize they are taking those nine billion years by faith?

 

[Cabal]

When someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I ask, "Which one? Just getting to the most basic form of life is a 1 in 10[sup]360,000,000[/sup] odd, and you're skipping over nine billion years."

According to whom? Calculation please.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to whom? Calculation please.

QV please.

 

[Cabal]

QV please.

That's not a calculation.

Although I did come across this:

McLean v. Arkansas - Plaintiff's transcript, testimony of Harold Morowitz

Q: Now, you have been explaining why the creation science dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life on this planet is unscientific. Is there any other aspect of the creation science treatment of the origins of life on this planet that is similarly unscientific?

A: Well, I find the use of probabilistic arguments to be somewhat deceptive.

Q: Would you explain what you mean?

A: In general in the creation science literature, they start out by assuming, by making statements about the complexity of living systems. These will generally be fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living systems.

They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a complex system will come about by random. When you do that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they then assert that therefore life by natural processes is impossible.


501

A: (Continuing) But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail. To do the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to do the calculations. We are simply lacking the information to do the calculations now, so to present them on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.

Q: Is it also in your view unscientific?

A: Since deception is unscientific, the answer to that is yes.

In other words, still wrong, for exactly the same reasons that it always was.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, still wrong, for exactly the same reasons that it always was.

Jesus was wrong too, isn't he?

Perhaps you would like to give us the correct odds?

I won't even ask for your calculations.

 

[Cabal]

Jesus was wrong too, isn't he?

This isn't a calculation either. Still waiting.

Can't say I recall Jesus making facile "probability" arguments during his long utterances on the state of 21st century creationism.

 

[VirOptimus]

Jesus was wrong too, isn't he?

Perhaps you would like to give us the correct odds?

I won't even ask for your calculations.

As it did happen the odds are 1:1.

 

[Cabal]

Perhaps you would like to give us the correct odds?

Re-read the quote from the court case that I posted. The whole notion of calculating probability is meaningless without actually knowing by which reaction life began in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Re-read the quote from the court case that I posted. The whole notion of calculating probability is meaningless without actually knowing by which reaction life began in the first place.

So it could be greater than 1 in 10[sup]340,000,000,000[/sup] ?

 

[Cabal]

So it could be greater than 1 in 10[sup]340,000,000,000[/sup] ?

Greater as in more likely? Yes, it could. I doubt it could be less likely as at a given set of initial conditions, "random" formation is little more than molecules etc. banging into each other - aside from this decidely not being how chemistry works and complex compounds form, I don't think you can have lower odds without changing the pressure/temperate of the system.

The other problem is, quoting a single number in isolation doesn't really mean anything without context. What is the set of possible outcomes composed of? If the outcomes were random, then yes, every other outcome is equally likely so getting the one you actually want is unlikely, but given that the actual process isn't random, for all we know the odds of a replicator occurring could be (numerically, based on our everyday experience of number) very small but the odds of anything else happening even smaller.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't -- but I can tell when 9,000,000,000 years comes up missing in a conversation.

Given that you have very little understanding of science, how can you tell?

When someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I ask, "Which one? Just getting to the most basic form of life is a 1 in 10[sup]340,000,000[/sup] odd, and you're skipping over nine billion years."

If they say, let's just talk about biological evolution, then I ask them if they realize they are taking those nine billion years by faith?

Odds? Excuse me, haven't you been told countless times that evolution is not random? You must have a very selective memory.

 

[Tiberius]

Jesus was wrong too, isn't he?

Perhaps you would like to give us the correct odds?

I won't even ask for your calculations.

Odds are for random things.

Evolution is not random.

 

[Jazer]

Odds are for random things.

Evolution is not random.

We are not talking about Random, we are talking about chaos and complexity theory.

 

[Jazer]

The whole notion of calculating probability is meaningless

We are JUST dealing with the evolution of protein in the cell. This is a very small part of all that is involved in evolution.

Harold Morowitz, distinguished Yale biophysicist and former master of Pierson College, wrote in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, that the evolution of the theoretically simplest cell, requiring no less than about 124 proteins, would occur in 1:10 to the 340,000,000 power. How big is this number, and what is its significance? The mathematical number for impossibility is 1050. The entire universe is estimated to contain "only" 1080 sub-atomic particles. 1080 is a very big number of unfathomable dimension. In other words, the probability of 1:10340,000,000 is incomprehensibly impossible.

The theory of evolution along with it's artificial intelligence works well for Chess. Because there is a limited number of moves available. So the theory is far from useless. But to take a good theory and try and stetch it as far as they do from micro to macro is absurd to say the least. The more complex the system the faster the theory breaks down.

 

[Jazer]

So it could be greater than 1 in 10[sup]340,000,000,000[/sup] ?

Not if you want to fit it into 14 billion years. First they say evolution would work if you give it enough time. Then you give them all the time they want and it still don't work for the application they are trying to use it for. Because it works for simple systems they think it will work for complexity under any condition or circumstance. This is simply an act of desperation and there is no other way to look at it. They are so desperate to deny God that they will grasp at any straw. Even when they try to deny that the overall possibility/probability is zero to none.

 

[Tiberius]

We are not talking about Random, we are talking about chaos and complexity theory.

So why was AV talking about the odds then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Excuse me, haven't you been told countless times that evolution is not random?

So evolution is guided, then?

 

[mpok1519]

which ever theory that says the moon was once apart of the earth, broke off from an impact, but still hung in the gravitational pull.

 

[AV1611VET]

which ever theory that says the moon was once apart of the earth, broke off from an impact, but still hung in the gravitational pull.

That would be the Colliding Planetesimals Theory.