Skip to main content
news

Re: Queen mother (of Britai...

TradeSurplus
Google Google
SubjectRe: Queen mother (of Britain) has died
FromTradeSurplus
Date2002-04-10 22:13 (2002-04-10 22:13)
Message-ID<m11t8.11967$iL2.3353706632@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsJoy
FollowupsJoy (7h & 53m)
Graeme (19h & 59m)
David Flood (1d, 23h & 49m)
Joy wrote ..

Joy
Okay, I was trying to put things as simply as possible, since I didn't think that anybody would take this creation-evolution discussion in a Queen Mother thread too seriously.

This might look a bit like a flame but it's not meant to be. You really need to clear up in your mind the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. From reading your posts the main points of your argument seem to be that the first stirrings of life on earth could not have started without a creator. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution takes as a starting assumption that life (or at least some kind of self-reproducing organsim) exists and then goes on to explain how the simplest forms of life developed into mice, dolphins and similarly complex and intelligent creatures.

Evolution is true, it's a fact, it's been demonstrated and it's only denied by extreme nutcases with no grasp of the relevant science and only the most tenuous of grasps on reality. When you say that you dont think evolution is true you place yourself firmly in the camp of the nutcases and make it hard to take anything you say afterwards seriously.

Of course there is still doubt about the mechanism of evolution and considerable doubt as to how that first living thing (that evolution simply takes as an assumption) came into being. Since this sensible place seems to be where you are making your arguments you are probably not a nutcase, but trying to link this to evolution makes you sound a lot like one. A good read of the talk.origins FAQ ( http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html ) should put you straight on the terminology and let you be sure that you are arguing at the point of current debate rather than re-hashing long stale arguments from years past.

BTW, accepting the fact that evolution is true shouldn't upset a belief in God any more than accepting the fact that some rocks (and cities for that matter) are more than 6,000 years old does.

Trade.

I know evolutionists don't believe it was just "*bang* and look, a human! whoa, what are the odds?"

It has been calculated that the odds of a spontaneous formation of even a small protein, given *100 billion years* (10 to 20 times greater than the approximated age of the earth) is less than 1 to 10 to the 60th.

And where is DNA from? I find the complexity of DNA mind-boggling. (Could, of course, just be my mind.) But we have these incredibly complex polymers, perfectly arranged into strands that are, in humans, over a metre long... the DNA of a bacterium can be made up of easily a few million separate units. DNA is far more complex than a simple protein, and the odds of *that* forming over 100 billion years are already slim... so if the odds of even a protein forming are ridiculous, I would think the odds of DNA strands happily forming into pretty spirals that *also* contain meaningful code, even over several billion years, are even tinier.

That's why I said the probability of evolution was slim.

Google
Joy (7h & 53m)
Graeme (19h & 59m)
David Flood (1d, 23h & 49m)