Spontaneous generation of a living cell is as improbable as a cyclone building a Boeing 747 with passengers on board and all playing computer games. (Sir Fred Hoyle)
Originally posted by Dasa Spontaneous generation of a living cell is as improbable as a cyclone building a Boeing 747 with passengers on board and all playing computer games. (Sir Fred Hoyle)
An event overcomes all counter-arguments that are based on its likelihood.
Originally posted by Dasa Spontaneous generation of a living cell is as improbable as a cyclone building a Boeing 747 with passengers on board and all playing computer games. (Sir Fred Hoyle)
You claim you're not a troll as dive suggests, and yet you regularly pop out these pithy sayings seeming to support your theses.
Originally posted by Dasa Spontaneous generation of a living cell is as improbable as a cyclone building a Boeing 747 with passengers on board and all playing computer games. (Sir Fred Hoyle)
Spontaneous generation of the post above is as improbable as an earthquake building a moped with a schizophrenic passenger on board who thinks he's a pogo stick. (me)
Originally posted by Agerg Spontaneous generation of the post above is as improbable as an earthquake building a moped with a schizophrenic passenger on board who thinks he's a pogo stick. (me)
Originally posted by RJHinds That sounds like evolution to me.
You fail to appreciate that randomness of reactions is in a field of literally trillions of possibilities going on at once. All it takes is one hit for the right combo of amino acids and such to end up making an RNA and then DNA complex that can reproduce.
That is the gist of one of the ideas for the beginning of life.
That still has nothing to do with evolution.
You should revise your idea of evolution at least to the extent that evolution says nothing about the beginnings of life. There have been a number of theories, maybe in a hundred years we might see a lab experiment produce life from nothing but precursor molecules. Till then all that is just conjecture. That is the state of the science of how life got started.
Evolution is WAY ahead of that game. Too bad you can't see the trees for the forest.
Originally posted by sonhouse You fail to appreciate that randomness of reactions is in a field of literally trillions of possibilities going on at once. All it takes is one hit for the right combo of amino acids and such to end up making an RNA and then DNA complex that can reproduce.
That is the gist of one of the ideas for the beginning of life.
That still has nothing to do w ...[text shortened]... arted.
Evolution is WAY ahead of that game. Too bad you can't see the trees for the forest.
You said, "...maybe in a hundred years we might see a lab experiment
produce life from nothing but precursor molecules."
God is the source of life, so what you said will NEVER happen.
Originally posted by Dasa Spontaneous generation of a living cell is as improbable as a cyclone building a Boeing 747 with passengers on board and all playing computer games. (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' You
gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me."-Billy Preston
Originally posted by ChessPraxis "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' You
gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me."-Billy Preston
In one of our upanishads called Ishawasyopnishad,it is succinctly stated :- That( the Unmanifest Reality ) one is Complete. This( the Manifest Reality ) one is also Complete.By adding This to That,what emerges is Complete.By subtracting This from That what remains is also Complete.
Spend a little time investigating and you may braoden your mind!
Note the thread title "You cant get something from nothing."
I believe the point is ligers or whatever don't come from nothing.
Lions and tigers had to exist before ligers could exist.