Originally posted by Rank outsider
Come, come sonhouse. The man makes a compelling argument.
I mean, like the argument that, if you come across something complex, then no way can that have just popped into existence or evolved over time. It must, absolutely must, have been created.
There's no way you can argue with this.
The only thing I am wondering, though, since I am now a ...[text shortened]... ave been designed, and his designer might be a bit pissed at his creation getting all the glory.
Oh yes we CAN argue that designer bit. We can't argue there may have been a designer for the whole universe and you can hypothesize about that, but my theory for that could be this: Our universe, the whole shooting match, could be the equivalent of a high school physics experiment, like our universe in a cage in a school lab where the results are charted year by year and each galaxy has to be accounted for and the experiment duly noted.
So here we are, humans, in a universe that allows life, so we are not the only ones but on our planet it sure LOOKS like we are the only ones so we make up a religion where some god so much loved us it created us in its image? Come on, doesn't that strike you as just a TEENY bit odd, that a deity would actually look like humans or have ANY kind of human traits, like that 'I am a jealous god' thing?
We have proven pretty convincingly the universe is NOT 6000 years old like YEC's say, which is an arrogant stance to begin with, like humans would be so high up the totem pole that it took a god to make us?
The thing that dude on the tube said, was bogus because he clearly knows nothing of the incredible adaptability of chemicals to react with each other, as if from his POV, there were only a few molecules that could have gotten together to make more complex ones, like all that happened one molecule at a time.
It didn't happen one molecule at a time, there were literally uncountable trillions of quadrillions of these little 'experiments' going on simultaneously and each one could have resulted in a slightly different result, since carbon is SO versatile it can have uncountable number of ways it can combine with other molecules to create an endless supply of amino acids and such.
The Miller experiment proved a bit of lightning can produce amino acids from the atmosphere and some water and even more complex molecules which happened in a matter of days in that lab experiment from 50 odd years ago.
So here we have, not just one bottle in a lab, but an entire planet with ocean vents producing hot water for extremely long periods of time, here we have clays that can mimic containers for reactions, get them confined in small spaces, in an early adaptation of shape that down the line gets replaced by cell membranes and such.
This dude has ZERO understanding of just how much diversity there was in the molecular combinations possible when you had back a few billion years ago, lightning, ocean bottom vents producing hot water reactions, lightning producing reactions, asteroid and meteor hits causing chemical reactions, literally MILLIONS of asteroid/meteorites hitting the early Earth. Literally thousands of times per second of these different kind of reactions happening all over the planet for literally millions of years, enough combinations get played out that no deity is needed, with the possible caveat the entire universe was created by a deity, that is all it would have need to do, this deity, make a universe where life is just possible, not that any given planet would now be the ancestral home for life, it can happen anywhere in any solar system where the conditions are right, for instance, he mentioned the 23 degree tilt of our spin around the sun, it has only been seen on Earth we benefited from this chance alignment of planets, Earth and Moon, that allowed that. Even with no tilt, there still could be life and evolution, there is no proof it can't.
All those arguments have huge holes in them, specifically designed to attract those who want to believe that tale and don't have a background that lets them examine the hypotheses in detail. Sheep following the herd, and no real analysis of what the dude and others like him say.
The kind of arguments the dude comes up with are all predicated on the fact that human science is very young. You might think that all the advances we have made so far puts us way up on the big picture of science but in fact we are still in kindergarten scientifically speaking. Come back in three hundred years, assuming we survive the next few centuries with the ability to do science at the pace we have gotten used to, with the internet and new technologies, science is evolving at an exponential rate, we can to things medically, for instance, that we could not have imagined even 20 years ago. So the kind of arguments these religious dudes come up with start out disparaging all of science and evolution especially AND demanding that evolution and life origins be combined together, saying things like, well, you can't even tell how life got here so why do think evolution is right, or words to that effect.
Evolution is the study of life changes as we see them, what happens to life AFTER it is already here.
There is ZERO attempt to explain life origins in evolution because that is a separate scientific discipline.
There is the science of evolution and a separate science of life origins, each with different goals and methods.
Evolutionists could care less HOW life got here, they are in the here and now and the study of fossils and that is ALL.
They leave the origin question up to an entirely different branch of science.
But the anti science bunch of YEC's want to FORCE the two to be one discipline and in so doing, they weaponize pseudoscientific crap in opinion pieces like this dude in question and others, who might even have Phd's but have an agenda to destroy evolution in order to prove their position that Earth is 6000 years old. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. That is politics. Their goal is to persuade enough people that evolution is some kind of atheistic vast conspiracy to destroy Christianity and so forth using pseudo science and arguments that have been busted over and over again but they just keep on putting on those bogus video's with fast talking charlatan salesman types that try to persuade people to come into their camp with the goal of defeating evolution and to force creationism to be taught AS IF IT WERE A SCIENCE, in a science class, not a theology class. They don't want it in theology, they want it to be converted to a LAW, creationism is the ONLY way it happened and ANY other theory is now blasphemy. That is the ultimate goal and I thank the justice system for seeing through all the gimmicks they used like substituting 'intelligent design' for christian creationism and now the latest ploy, coming from the angle of freedom of expression.
Schools, according to their twisted view, should be able to teach whatever the hell the principle WANTS to teach, whether it is scientifically valid or not.
That is not education. That is called BRAINWASHING. That is the opposite of trying to teach children to think for themselves, which is how new science gets done when the younger generation grows up and they become scientists themselves, get their Phd's and learn something new about the world.
If it were left up to the brainwashing set, that would never happen because the last thing in the world they would want is to question the brainwashing and wonder about how things came about all on their own.
That is their goal, and it is fortunate they will NEVER achieve it. Not if I can help it.