Why evolution doesn't work.

[Micaiah]

Tell us about Fred Hoyle?

 

[Micaiah]

OK, but Darwin isn't you. How do you decide these questions. You know, what's the purpose of life? How should I live my life?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Micaiah
OK, but Darwin isn't you. How do you decide these questions. You know, what's the purpose of life? How should I live my life?

I don't know the purpose of life, and I don't care. Why would you ask me how you're supposed to live your life? After all it's your life; live it the way you want.

Edited! typos suck.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Apologist
So you are saying that Sir Fred Hoyle was wrong?

Don't know about Physicist, but I'd say he was wrong

The 747 anology is a poor strawman that is totally non represenative of any scientific predictions of the ToE. Not suprisingly, Hoyle chimed in with other opinions and looked equally silly. You guys might do better than to get all of your "scientific" arguments from cranks and liars.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html

 

[Orihalcon]

Originally posted by SerialCoder
I'm in! Where do i sign up? Do I get to wear a hat?

of course! here's your dunce cap =D

 

[Orihalcon]

Originally posted by Micaiah
OK, but Darwin isn't you. How do you decide these questions. You know, what's the purpose of life? How should I live my life?

evolution isn't religion.  it explains our origins, but just because it tells us something different than a religion says doesn't mean it tells us everything that is different from that religion.  like morals or afterlife or faith.

 

[Micaiah]

NASA and other science organizations seem to think these questions are important. From what I've heard, that is how they justify spending millions on space exploration.

By the way, I'm inclined to think you are right. If we were the product of chance , then it is hard to think of an inspiring purpose in life, except survival, and you should be able to do pretty much what you want.

If on the other hand there is a Creator who reveals life's purpose, and the way you should live, then that will make a big difference.

 

[Micaiah]

Quote"evolution isn't religion. it explains our origins"

Seesaw told me back a little that we can't really explain our origins, that no one really knows. To then say we exist because of evolution sounds like something you believe even though you cannot really prove it scientifically. Pardon, but I call that religious faith.

 

[lithium.]

No it can't explain the origan of life the first cell/s, and etc... But it can explain how humans (man) exists, and all life on earth, but it can't tell us where the first part of life started or how.

 

[lithium.]

I'm out good night everyone

 

[Micaiah]

I'd be interested to hear a summary of how you think life began. I cannot read superfast, and am not a particularly quick thinker, so try to keep the amount you write to a minimum.

 

[Micaiah]

Seeya Seesaw. Thanks for the chat. Maybe you could answer another time. Time for me to go as well.

 

[sulphur]

Fred Hoyle was an accomplished scientist who proposed the steady state theory.If any little academic wants to prove something let him come forward

 

[Risen Tree]

WOW this thread grew like lightning last night.

seebs: I didn't say the 2nd Law of Thermo; I generalized it here.  The 2nd Law has apparently been debated around here many, many times.  Two things I need to point out: (1) It does not exclusively apply to closed systems.  I have taken a college-level Thermodynamics class, and we did many 2nd-Law problems with open systems.  (2) The principle of disorder is a fundamental rule of life.  Anything left unattended spontaneously falls apart.

Doug: At the present time, the only scientifically viable mechanism for evolution that I can perceive is theistic, punctuated equilibrium.  And that has some serious theological flaws, but this is a scientific discussion, not a theological one, so I won't get into that for now.

seesaw: Natural selection isn't chance.  Mutations are.

Physicist: Each step in the evolutionary process involves two stages: (1) the mutation, and (2) the spread of the new gene into the gene pool.  While #2 may not be random, it does take a long time.  But #1 is completely random.

MSBS: Creationists might not use the 2nd Law because evolutionists have attempted to refute it...incorrectly, I might add.  The latter do not understand that they are referring to its underlying principle, which is a fundamental tenet of the universe.

Orihalcon: Evolution and its inherent religiousness, eh?  Shall we get started on that one?  

I hope I covered everything.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Anything left unattended spontaneously falls apart.

I would agree.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
The principle of disorder is a fundamental rule of life.  Anything left unattended spontaneously falls apart.

Then if I leave a super-saturated suger solution to cool, why do I get crystal formation? According to your version of 2LOT, this should be impossible.

Natural selection isn't chance.  Mutations are.

So?

Creationists might not use the 2nd Law because evolutionists have attempted to refute it...incorrectly, I might add.  The latter do not understand that they are referring to its underlying principle, which is a fundamental tenet of the universe.

I think you don't understand that there is nothing preventing "order" rising from "disorder" in the universe. Otherwise, I'd never get crystal formations when my sugar solution cools.

 

[Risen Tree]

Thanks, s0uljah.

Pete, is this process of crystal formation spontaneously reversible?  If not, then crystal formation is actually to a state of disorder, as two once-separate chemicals are now mixed together.  Whichever situation does not spontaneously arise from the other is the more highly-ordered situation.

The fact that mutations are chance refutes the argument that evolution is not time-plus-chance.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

No problem Rising Tree. Somebody has to watch your back. Just dont get too disappointed if they don't listen to you here.

 

[seebs]

Chance *plus selection* is not the same thing as chance.

 

[sulphur]

As a geoligist I regard the last statements as illinformed. I have seen a crystal of gold ,isometric of course without any defects.please learn what you are talkinc about