Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

Wrong again. The good old Primordial Ooze, Lightening Strikes, Chemical Reactions, were all part of the Theory Of Evolution until "oops" we can't seem to reproduce the event in a lab, even with all our scientific know how, that doesn't look very good on our part, saaaayyy....I know, we'll just give that idea a different title and separate the two and maybe know one will notice.

Yeah, once they found out that even the simplest life forms were way more complex than they had ever imagined and they couldn't create them in a lab. What a convenient way of dealing with that little wrench in the machine. Originally Posted by bojulay

You're just a COMPLETE ignoramus aren't you? Who is "they"? Was there some kind of conspiracy?

Do you have proof of ANYTHING you post? You almost NEVER post a link. You just make unsupported assertions that don't prove anything.

You're just a COMPLETE ignoramus aren't you? Who is "they"? Was there some kind of conspiracy?

Do you have proof of ANYTHING you post? You almost NEVER post a link. You just make unsupported assertions that don't prove anything. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Of course it's a.....GASP......creationist website.

www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

Why don't you read what they have to say and copy it down
and refute it using the red letters for effect.

The red letters are purdy.

I think the panspermia idea is fascinating, but I doubt it is true.

First, even if true, it doesn't explain the origin of life on the alien planet. All it does is change the physical location of the unknown occurrence. You still have to address the question "OK, if life on earth came from microbes on a planet in the Milky Way that were transported to earth on an asteroid, then how did the microbial life get started on the alien planet"?

The odds of life being spontaneously created on the alien planet would STILL be about 1 in X, where X is a number with 40,000 zeros behind it. But then, that planet gets blown apart and the microbes on the asteroid would somehow have to survive for millions of years drifting in the ice-cold vacuum of space with no oxygen and then surviving the blast of heat when it collided with the earth's atmosphere. Those odds are probably just as small as life being crated in the first place. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I agree with the idea that the odds of life spontaneously forming elsewhere would be the same as here. Unless there is some other place in the universe where conditions are more conducive. Clearly, I have no idea where that might be. Nor does anyone else for that matter. It is truly a fascinating subject.
As for the idea of organisms surviving the coldness of space, remember that after the emergence of life on the planet, earth went through the period geologists refer to as "snowball earth" so it is possible.
It's more of the same old story. The more we know the less we know.
I'm sure it's been said in this thread already but the plain truth is that science can tell us how but not why in many cases.
Einstein said that "Science without God is lame and God without science is blind."
Sums it up nicely for me.

I think the panspermia idea is fascinating, but I doubt it is true.

First, even if true, it doesn't explain the origin of life on the alien planet. All it does is change the physical location of the unknown occurrence. You still have to address the question "OK, if life on earth came from microbes on a planet in the Milky Way that were transported to earth on an asteroid, then how did the microbial life get started on the alien planet"?

The odds of life being spontaneously created on the alien planet would STILL be about 1 in X, where X is a number with 40,000 zeros behind it. But then, that planet gets blown apart and the microbes on the asteroid would somehow have to survive for millions of years drifting in the ice-cold vacuum of space with no oxygen and then surviving the blast of heat when it collided with the earth's atmosphere. Those odds are probably just as small as life being crated in the first place. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Stop the presses!!! ExNYer actually made a post that makes some sense.

Stop the presses!!! ExNYer actually made a post that makes some sense. Originally Posted by bojulay

And you still haven't.

Your site cracks me up, boj. All that to say someone did it with their super powers and we should praise them?

I think the panspermia idea is fascinating, but I doubt it is true.

First, even if true, it doesn't explain the origin of life on the alien planet. All it does is change the physical location of the unknown occurrence. You still have to address the question "OK, if life on earth came from microbes on a planet in the Milky Way that were transported to earth on an asteroid, then how did the microbial life get started on the alien planet"?

The odds of life being spontaneously created on the alien planet would STILL be about 1 in X, where X is a number with 40,000 zeros behind it. But then, that planet gets blown apart and the microbes on the asteroid would somehow have to survive for millions of years drifting in the ice-cold vacuum of space with no oxygen and then surviving the blast of heat when it collided with the earth's atmosphere. Those odds are probably just as small as life being crated in the first place. Originally Posted by ExNYer

But alas, he still wasn't smart enough to see that he is
refuting his own belief in spontaneous generation at the
same time. (Would still be 1 in X, where X is a number with 40,000 zeros
behind it)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

Damn!!! and I had such high hopes there for a minute, alas the
dream is gone.

Your site cracks me up, boj. All that to say someone did it with their super powers and we should praise them? Originally Posted by forumguy456987

Yes, feigning amusement at something that you can't really argue
with or have no counterpoints against is sometimes the best ploy
or tactic to use.

Also the use of elementary diminishing description.

I see you have employed both with the use of very few words.
Very good.

No, I'm just opting out of the argument. The people who need to know the points to the argument already do. And any other info has been established throughout the thread.

Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

7 & 40 were sacred numbers. I cant remember why 7 is a sacred number but 40 stones are used to build an altar

But alas, he still wasn't smart enough to see that he is
refuting his own belief in spontaneous generation at the same time. (Would still be 1 in X, where X is a number with 40,000 zeros behind it)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

Damn!!! and I had such high hopes there for a minute, alas the dream is gone. Originally Posted by bojulay

Shit-for-brains - those aren't my numbers, those are his numbers. i wasn't arguing the probability, only the LOCATION where the spontaneous creation occurred.

I have no idea what the probability is and neither did the persons who came up with the 1 in a huger number probability. He pulled that number out of his ass.

A one-in-a-trillion probability sounds very unlikely until you ask how many tests are being conducted in parallel and how fast. If a billion tests are occurring per second, you could expect that within a few hours, it is likely that the one-in-a-trillion event would have occurred at least once.

The same goes for all of the trillions of trillions of molecules that over the course of millions of years might finally see that one-in-a-number followed by 40 zeros finally occur.

I have no idea what the probability is and neither did the persons who came up with the 1 in a huger number probability. He pulled that number out of his ass.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

I can assure you that Fred Hoyle didn't pull anything out of his ass. Hoyle was a prominent and highly respected astronomer and mathematician who gave name to the Big Bang theory developed by George Lemaitre. He was also an anti-thiest most of his life, much like Christopher Hitchens.