Why? How? What the heck...?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Ditto with Christianity.

Well perhaps,

The major difference I see between evolution and creationism and / or ID, is that the precusory conditions for life could have occurred millions or billions of times before life (which, in itself was statistically unlikely) actually succeeded in beginning on the primative earth. There are subsequently been millions of germinations of these organisms to build up genetic changes, in which only the best would survive (take for example, E coli. has a lifecycle of 8 minutes in good conditions, producing 2 daughter cells, 1 year to E coli represents nearly 66,000 generations, the equivalent of over a million human years (generation time of 20 years assumed).

There is only 1 universe, which means that the chances of a statistically unlikely god actually existing are not good.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well perhaps,

The major difference I see between evolution and creationism and / or ID, is that the precusory conditions for life could have occurred millions or billions of times before life (which, in itself was statistically unlikely) actually succeeded in beginning on the primative earth. There are subsequently been millions of germinations of th ...[text shortened]... se, which means that the chances of a statistically unlikely god actually existing are not good.

There is only 1 universe...

Whoops! You must have missed the "Parallel Universes"* theory, which tries to negate the Big-Question unanswered by the Big-Bang: who/what was the cause for such a cataclysmic event?

Their answer: Duh! We are just part of a bigger system of universes that collide and interact!

http://www.manyuniverses.com/

Edit: Also -- with such a huge reproduction rate, has E Coli produced anything but itself?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]There is only 1 universe...

Whoops! You must have missed the "Parallel Universes"* theory, which tries to negate the Big-Question unanswered by the Big-Bang: who/what was the cause for such a cataclysmic event?

Their answer: Duh! We are just part of a bigger system of universes that collide and interact!

http://www.manyuniverses.com/[/b]

Oh no my friend, I know all about the polyverse.

However, there is only one universe in which we can make any comparisons or measurements. Therefore, the probability of god existing in this universe is infinitesimally small.

Also, before the big bang there was no time. Nothing existed, not even time. The question 'what created the big bang?' is not valid. Cause and effect did not exist, because nothing and everything existed all at once. It's beyond human comprehension, because humans evolved in a universe where cause and effect exists.

Science exists by the examination of cause and effect, but since this didn't exist it doesn't matter (but then nothing did - there WAS no matter). This is quite possibly the hardest concept in the universe.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh no my friend, I know all about the polyverse.

However, there is only one universe in which we can make any comparisons or measurements. Therefore, the probability of god existing in [b]this universe is infinitesimally small.

Also, before the big bang there was no time. Nothing existed, not even time. The question 'what created the big b ...[text shortened]... nothing did - there WAS no matter). This is quite possibly the hardest concept in the universe.[/b]

If it is beyond human comprehension, then how come you are the lucky one to comprehend and believe in it?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]There is only 1 universe...

Whoops! You must have missed the "Parallel Universes"* theory, which tries to negate the Big-Question unanswered by the Big-Bang: who/what was the cause for such a cataclysmic event?

Their answer: Duh! We are just part of a bigger system of universes that collide and interact!

http://www.manyuniverses.com/

Edit: Also -- with such a huge reproduction rate, has E Coli produced anything but itself?[/b]

Produced??? It's not a factory! Again with the invalid questions!

If you want to know about speciation I suggest you read the latest edition of the journal science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

Start with this page.

Originally posted by Halitose
If it is beyond human comprehension, then how come you are the lucky one to comprehend and believe in it?

I can't comprehend everything and nothing all at the same time. It doesn't make 'sense' (although of course, sense didn;t exist either).

Just because something doesn't exist it doesn't mean it never will.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Produced??? It's not a factory! Again with the invalid questions!

If you want to know about speciation I suggest you read the latest edition of the journal science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

Start with this page.

Oh sure. I could have said, "mutated", but I would probably have been charged with hate speech. As to "observed" speciation, has this ever led to anything more complex than a bacterium?

Edit: You forget that I completely agree with speciation.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I can't comprehend everything and nothing all at the same time. It doesn't make 'sense' (although of course, sense didn;t exist either).

Just because something doesn't exist it doesn't mean it never will.

Then how can you be so confident that this is how it happened?

Originally posted by Halitose
Oh sure. I could have said, "mutated", but I would probably have been charged with hate speech. As to "observed" speciation, has this ever led to anything more complex than a bacterium?

Are two species more complex than one? Read the article.


Anyhoo, to have mutilcellular life orginate from simple life took more than half the age of the world, under quite different conditinos than we currenlty have - I wouldn't expect it to happen again.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Are two species more complex than one? Read the article.


Anyhoo, to have mutilcellular life orginate from simple life took more than half the age of the world, under quite different conditinos than we currenlty have - I wouldn't expect it to happen again.

I did. Like all evolutionary papers, it assumes microevolution proves macroevolution in the long run.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Are two species more complex than one? Read the article.


Anyhoo, to have mutilcellular life orginate from simple life took more than half the age of the world, under quite different conditinos than we currenlty have - I wouldn't expect it to happen again.

Anyhoo, to have mutilcellular life orginate from simple life took more than half the age of the world, under quite different conditinos than we currenlty have - I wouldn't expect it to happen again.

Eh? Then that is not science, my friend. Science deals in observable phenomenon.

Originally posted by Halitose
Then how can you be so confident that this is how it happened?

I'm no expert - I suggest you ask Professor Hawkins who can explain it far better than I. His email is

S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Anyhoo, to have mutilcellular life orginate from simple life took more than half the age of the world, under quite different conditinos than we currenlty have - I wouldn't expect it to happen again.

Eh? Then that is not science, my friend. Science deals in observable phenomenon.[/b]

You'd be surprised what you can observe with the tools we have nowadays; we can tell the environmental conditions under which rocks were formed. we can see a definite size split in the fossil record between unicellular and multicellular life. We can use a variety of genetic, physiological and biochemical techniques to prove the links. Cladistics is a powerful tool. You should learn about it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm no expert - I suggest you ask Professor Hawkins who can explain it far better than I. His email is

S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk

lol. Don't worry, I'm not just taking his word for it, I'm busy working my way through his "A Brief History of Time".

Originally posted by Halitose
I did. Like all evolutionary papers, it assumes microevolution proves macroevolution in the long run.

I'm afraid we have the fossil record to prove what you call 'macro' evolution. Ever heard of archaeopteryx, or ceolocanths?