So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.
When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10big fucking giant, unfathomable number. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 1040. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?
Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.
Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.
You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc. It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?
You are putting entirely too much weight of your argument into the "fossil record." It is hopelessly incomplete, for many of the reasons others have listed in this thread. It is a complete fallacy to think it offers any accurate snapshot of history life on this earth.
So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?
Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.
It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
I have pretty much decided that you are a Gainsaying troll, the alternative to this is you have a massively overinflated view of your own meagre knowledge, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the former.
Here’s why;
In your rebuttal based on very big numbers you add a bunch of links, in the third that mentions the number 10
40 specifically, is the quote.
“Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.
In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 litres, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.”
So, you either never read it or …(see my first line).
You then erroneously state that “
no one found anything notable” until Darwin.
Have you even checked this? Origin of species – 1859, Megalosaurus bucklandi named in 1827, Richard Owen’s (an opponent of Darwin but dino’ man) Dinosauria – 1842, the Crystal Palace Dinosaur sculptures representing 15 genera’s of extinct animals 1852, Mary Anning (she sells sea shells) for gods sake 1799-1847 and so on.
Megalosaurus bones had been recorded much earlier in the 17th century and had been catalogued as both a Roman war Elephant and a biblical giant, that from memory and a quick search for confirmation.
No way couldn’t you have found this or any number of other examples, unless… (See first line).
Hoaxes? Misinterpretations? Where humans/money are involved, seriously! Proved to be hoaxes by scientists not priests or (See first line)?
I could go on down your list of badly researched tirade but you get my drift.
And then finally,
“it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!” Well no shit Sherlock! Nobody is saying it does! But science is the process of trying by incremental steps, each building on the former to join the dots, we may never know, but how is that either a surprise or an argument? If you stretch out your arms either side of you, take that width as a representation of the age of the Earth, the whole of human history would be erased with one stroke of a nail file. That is how insignificant we are, that is the relative time span you expect science to have all the answers for, all in the scrape of a file.
The truth is on here, but you can’t handle the truth.
Show Posts
