Evolution, just a big hoax?
- Thread starter DoctorH
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,173
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
DoctorH said:
Why is it?
Give me some scientific proof showing the existence of an intelligent power and i'll consider your argument.
Meanwhile, read up on the theory of evolution, study some fossils, etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Norfolk
ElRazur said:
agreed
Wardie said:
Well i am fairly well read on the theory of evolution, and it seems that the only evidence for it is the fact that animals are well suited to their environments. Isn't this evidence for Intelligent Design?
With regards to fossils, the evidence given to us by fossil records does as much to hurt the theory of evolution as to uphold it. For example, the cambrian explosion.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 289
DoctorH said:
No its evidence of changing to adapt to changing atmospheres.
are you tom cruise?
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,173
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
I was thinking that the second I read the post, but thought i'd give him a chance 
DoctorH said:
I have no clue about that time period, but can the theory deal with what the fossiles have been found, if so the theory holds if not, then it either needs a tweak or a new theory made. I doubt it's the latter.
How about a link?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Norfolk
KNiVES said:
A 'troll' from urban dictionary
I wouldn't say he is doing that exactly. Just because you believe something that is illogical by all accounts doesnt make you a troll.
Anyway...back on topic
I don't think you can see evolution as a hoax. Even with intelligent design you are accepting evolution to some extent, merely replacing natural selection with God. The two are compatible...isnt that kind of the point?
DoctorH said:
Darwin acknowledged the Cambrian explosion and it was factored into his model of evolution by natural selection. It objects with several successor theories of animals, it doesn't object against the model well enough to discredit it.
Don't forget to list the thousands of key pieces of evidence opposite to the Cambrian explosion as well. No arguement without balance.
Well the theory of evolution does nothing to explain the origin of life itself; The chances of the ten to twenty required amino acids to collide together in tFhe right way to form just one enzyme is one in ten to the power of twenty. For all the enzymes required to make a protein the chances or one in ten to the power of forty thousand (even less likely than the cosmological constant allowing the universe itself to exist). Not only that but they are then required to be held together in "the primordial soup" long enough for the same thing to happen to make another protein. Ultimately this must happen millions of times in order for a single strand of DNA to form. These facts are all in Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley & Roger Olsen's 1984 book "The mystery of life's origin".
Let's suppose just for a moment that all of these unlikely things happened. One would assume it would take billions of years to happen. However, there is evidence of life existing on Earth as early as 3.8 billion years ago. Very shortly after the sun formed (about 25 million years). Given the time scale, it is estimated that by the time a single cell would have been formed naturally and accidentally the sun would be nearing its end. However, the sun is still very young. So if this "accidental cell" was formed, it has done so several billion, billion, billion, billion times faster than probability says it should. Once again the chances of it actually doing this are too small to even calculate.
Let's suppose just for a moment that all of these unlikely things happened. One would assume it would take billions of years to happen. However, there is evidence of life existing on Earth as early as 3.8 billion years ago. Very shortly after the sun formed (about 25 million years). Given the time scale, it is estimated that by the time a single cell would have been formed naturally and accidentally the sun would be nearing its end. However, the sun is still very young. So if this "accidental cell" was formed, it has done so several billion, billion, billion, billion times faster than probability says it should. Once again the chances of it actually doing this are too small to even calculate.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
KNiVES said:
I was under the impression that it wasn't fact, hence it's know as the theory of evolution rather than the pain old fact of evolution. It would be virtually impossible to prove under lab conditions because of the time-scale required.
That said, it's still the most convincing theory out there.