From my personal experience studying evolution vs creation ... the theory for evolution (mainly, big bang) has too many chance numbers to be actively effective in stating how everything came about, you have to factor in the chance of the right formation of amino acids, the right chance of weather climates , the right change of the temperature of the water , the right change of a sterile offspring from 2 creatures mating ... and as always with both view you're still faced how something could originate from nothing.
57 comments
And yet, with enough chances over a long period of time, added with the elimination of faults and propagation of beneficial genes and features, complexity and highly tuned systems can arise.
So what really you have a problem with is NOT Evolution, only the concept of we being here by absolute chance.
You studied evolution and that lead you to confuse it with the big bang, huh?
Lying for Jesus, or sheer stupidity?
You've never studied evolution, you moron. Your pastor telling you that's what you're doing, when he gives you 'literature' to read on the topic, doesn't make it studying.
THE EVOLUTION IS NOT THE MOTHERFUCKING BIG BANG
I don't think the chances are an issue since we have yet to find life on another planet and if the chances were an issue, we would not be here to investigate it.
ya feel me dawg
You're right--the chances that a species would evolve into the exact form and function that we know as human is about one in a hundred septillion, at best.
However, the chances that we would evolve into SOMETHING advanced is almost 100%.
What is it with fundies who think the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are all one coherent theory? They are THREE mutually exclusive theories that are part of three different fields of study. If these asswads actually had studied even ONE of these ideas, they wouldn't bunch them together. Lying fuckers haven't studied shit... it's against their religion.
You obviously did not study enough, as your belief that evolution is the same as the big bang.
Next time, actually read those books whose titles you come walk past in the store windows.
"From my personal experience studying evolution vs creation ... the theory for evolution (mainly, big bang) [...]"
You didn't study it very hard, did you?
"has too many chance numbers to be actively effective in stating how everything came about, you have to factor in the chance of the right formation of amino acids, the right chance of weather climates , the right change of the temperature of the water , the right change of a sterile offspring from 2 creatures mating ... and as always with both view you're still faced how something could originate from nothing."
Please find a remedial biology 101 course at your nearest center of education. Preferably one that's not religiously run this time.
No no, guys -- he didn't say he studied Evolution, he said he studied "evolution vs. creation."
Which is a subject taught only at Bible Banger University.
Evolution = biology
Oh, well, lack of knowledge inhibits normal people. It encourages fundies.
As others have pointed out, evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, also, if one starts with a preconception, like "God did it", it's not studying, plus run-on sentences make you sound like a bigger idiot than your silly opinions, while I find your claim of ever reading anything written by a biologist, or physicist, extremely unlikely.
One more time
The "Big Bang" had nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with Evolution!
Evolution isn't about hybridization. Evolution is changes to adapt to environment over a period of time.
From my personal experience studying evolution vs creation ... the theory for evolution (mainly, big bang)
You know what. Just stop typing right there. That says all I need to know.
"the theory for evolution (mainly, big bang)"
FAIL!
meh, i didn't even read the rest...
"From my personal experience studying evolution vs creation ... the theory for evolution (mainly, big bang)
Wow, the effort you put forth in studying is exemplified by this one line.
the big bang thoery is not a sub-thoery or anything like that to evolution. They're completely indepent of each other and abiogenesis for that matter. How many fucking times does this need to be explained!? Also, as far as all of those conditions having been met or "right", that's irrelevant. If one of teh conditions you mentioned had been different the outcome would have been different and you'd postulate that that was the right way, or you wouldn't be here at all to argue.
So evolution is wrong because of the Big Bang, the weather, amino acids and the "right change in the temperature of water" (whatever that means).
Funny, you pointed out lots of stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Well ok amino acids kinda sorta do, but really the right combination of amino acids is far more likely to occur than you think given the fact that they don't combine randomly and you had an entire Earth as a laboratory and millions of years worth of trial and error.
1 everything having to be "right" to get to this point? I must say that nothing precludes an alternative path leading to something different
2 the last phrase sums up the ultimate conundrum: something from nothing. But the fundie answer always begs the question - what before?
All together now: "THE BIG BANG HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!"
Also, EVOLUTION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!!!!!
Thank you, now back to our regular programming.
If something has already happened, the probability of it happening before the fact is meaningless. The probability of a particular sequence of 100 roulette spins happening is 1 in 10^158. But once the spins are actually made, this is a meaningless number. Same with life. The probability of life arising exactly as it is today is incredibly small. But it's a meaningless number, because there may be an equally enormous number of alternative ways it could have arisen.
Even ID supporter Bill Dembski, with his math PhD, doesn't seem to grasp this simple concept.
Failed on the first sentence, since Big Bang =/= Evolution. Then they go on to describe their problems with the theory of Abiogenesis.
I theorize that you haven't studied this at all, Nahaj.
"too many chance numbers "
Yeah those chance numbers are too confusing. That's why I didn't take statistics. I figured I would play the lottery instead of taking those hard courses to get a good paying job.
"From my personal experience studying evolution vs creation ... the theory for evolution (mainly, big bang)"
image
COSMOLOGY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
study more
if conditions were differnet we would not be here as humans, we might be different or simply not exist. We exist, as humans , so conditions were right for humans to exist.
Your personal experience of studying well - anything, seem to be confined to children's books and cretinist indoctrination. If you had actually studied evolution, at all, (using biology textbooks and scientific journals), you'd know that it has almost nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution is biology, Big Bang is cosmology. The only way they are connected is that the Big Bang happened first, some 14 billion years ago. 11 billion years later (quite recently, in other words) life emerged on one little planet orbiting an insignificant star on the outskirts of the Milky Way in a corner of the Universe. How, we don’t know exactly yet, but a plausible sequence of events is described in the Hypothesis of Abiogenesis. Once life had started, Evolution kicked in, as a natural way for that life to adapt to the environments. A cosmological second later (3 billion years, to be precise); here we are!
If any of those "chance numbers" had been different, we would just have a different set of life-forms, that is all. When oxygen first emerged, there was a gigantic extinction; about 95 percent of all life at that time died out. The only ones who stayed alive was the few who could manage that extremely toxic substance, i.e. our ancestors.
From what did that God of yours originate? That is the only "something from nothing" origin story we have, to my knowledge.
Well, no... all those things are a problem for "creation", but since evolution has nothing to do with creation, why should you give evolution the blame for all the things you didn't bother to study?
“From my personal experience studying evolution vs creation ... the theory for evolution (mainly, big bang)”
"you have to factor in the chance of”
Same way a list of a day’s horse race results are offered as a fact no matter what the odds were for that particular outcome.
“and as always with both view you're still faced how something could originate from nothing.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
