RE: Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false
November 5, 2014 at 3:28 pm
(This post was last modified: November 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(November 4, 2014 at 7:59 am)Rob216 Wrote: "Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system. The MWO (Ed.: "many worlds in one"[118]) version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation could suggest a way out of this conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of distinct macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible but inevitable."
Eugene Koonin, computational biologist
So is he saying that we'd have to believe in infinite universes in order to substantiate abiogenesis? Or did I misinterpret that?
You misinterpreted it, but reasonably so. More like, with current knowledge we would have to invoke something like that as an explanation for getting through the gap of what we know could have happened and what we think did happen. However, the more we learn, the less staggering the odds. Hoyle's estimate of the odds of a cell coming together by chance, for instance, are obsolete now that we recognize that a self-replicating molecule would have preceded cell formation. It was really obsolete at the time it was made, since no one was seriously proposing that as an origin for life, but you get the idea. The odds keep getting better. We can get short strands of RNA in the lab by simulating Hadean era conditions, if we can figure out conditions that result in long strands, the odds get a LOT better.
(November 4, 2014 at 10:59 pm)Rob216 Wrote: Atheists will say that theists don't believe what they believe because they're illogical and theists will say that atheists don't believe what they believe because they don't have faith.
If only theists would stick to that claim about us, we wouldn't have much to complain about. Instead we're constantly told that we secretly believe in God, or that it takes more faith to not believe in God than to believe in God, or that we're sure there's no God but lie about it and say we just lack belief in God for rhetorical advantage.
I long for the days when theists merely accuse us of not having enough faith to believe.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
