Evolution
Here is the excerpt from my discussion with Jonahdog. I asked a series of questions, to which he replied. In my response, I included his quotes:
I never deny evolutionary concepts, for they are obvious fact. Such as adaptation, germ theory, etc. These are concepts however. Evolutionary theory includes these concepts, but as a whole produces a hypothesis for many questions. You said (and scientists agree) that life began in the early oceans. Why? Chemistry and physics. But that doesn't answer the question. How did life begin in the early oceans? Chemistry, no doubt referring to organic and biochemistry, with biophysics, would not produce life. "Life" is not a byproduct of any chemical rxn. Nor the result of any cycle in biophysics. The answer, which scientists have to provide, is that a "miracle" of impossible circumstance occurred once. Which itself goes against logic. Why would any event occur once naturally? Nature itself is a recurring set of phenomena. The mathematics, physics, and chemistry do not produce such a phenomena. The probability has more zeros than the age of the universe.
How long does it take to evolve? You say, "less than one billion years (obviously)." But you have to answer that, because you are limited to a timetable, set by the age of the earth. Which leads to the next question/answer: How does trial-error result in complex/simple systems like metabolism or thrombosis? (I am not saying metabolism is simple, however, it is a daily and constant necessary function)You reply with suggestions that courses would explain it. When in fact, they won't. Thrombosis is a very delicate function. The same with metabolism. If any species is altered in the slightest degree, the whole system collapses, back to zero. Such failure would result in death of the organism. A complex reaction and function, could not mathematically (or logically) have resulted from trial-error, in the timetable of the earth, let alone the cosmos.
This leads into the next two questions, which you claimed "makes no sense." How would a dying organism (such as the one who just failed a successful thrombosis attempt) communicate to nearby organisms about the evolution it was trying to undergo? Of course the question "makes no sense," because the answer is detrimental to the theory of evolution. Organisms could not, in early states, communicate complex actions to one another. Therefore, the idea that each organism successfully and eventually evolved complex systems and cycles, via trial-error which could not be communicated with fellow organisms, breaks the rules put forth by the theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis time. This will be quick and easy, although for you, I cannot say painless. You once again relied on "chemistry and physics" as means of answering, which is fine. I know the answers put forth by chemistry and physics, as do you. So no need to go in depth there. The question of the scenario which produced life being a "miracle" of improbability, you answer with "Apparently not. We are here." This is a dismissing of mathematics. And you know it is. The reason that you reply this way is that truth and logic point to the theory of abiogenesis being beyond impossible. One can be dismissive and say "well, we're here aren't we," but that doesn't explain anything. Neil Armstrong didn't just appear on the moon; there was an extensive amount of preparation and statistics that got him there. Science got him there. (I know this doesn't really work well as an analogy itself, but the explanation is key). You know, as do I, that probability is one of the largest flaws with abiogenesis. Probability renders the theory null, due to the staggering odds of so many elements and scenarios being perfect for the briefest of moments. It is more probable to throw out millions of scrabble letters and them form the phrase "To Be or Not To Be," in the same amount of time (4.5 million years), as for life to "appear" on the earth.
Now, what data points to abiogeneis? You answered "don't know what you mean...yada yada." This is either because you didn't understand the question, which I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, or you know that there is no evidence (which all theories in science call for) to support abiogenesis. There is no reproducing the creation of life. There is no evidence, physically or naturally, that demonstrates abiogenesis occurring. Sure, "we exist," but that is not data or proof of the theory of abiogenesis. Alternate theories could use the very same reason, and you would reject them as being insufficient.
Lastly, the Big Bang. Once again, we will not discuss the in-depth answers of chemistry and physics. But what holds the sun in place? You say it moves. I agree. But we are not spinning into other galaxies and colliding with other bodies, on a constant basis. Which goes against physics. The sun is pretty much stationary (in astronomical senses). Add on to this, proof that the universe is not expanding, rather contracting. Look up the redshift data measurements for the universe. Now, I am no astrophysicist or astronomer, but the data shows that expansion is not occurring, rather the opposite.
Life does have a purpose. Any scientist or religious agrees on this. Fitness is the scientific answer. Religious produce all kinds of answers, so no need to go into those. I will post all the contradictory statements of scientists, as well as those who disagree and assert, as I do, that theories of evolution, abiogenesis, have been disproven; as well as how the Big Bang doesn't really answer anything. I will also give a few statistics and evidence as well, which I have found on my own, through research.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
