Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Rob216]

Yea Exian I live in a suburb of cleveland.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Interesting thought. We do have the mysterious dark energy which exceeds the radiation of all the stars and supernovae combined. Are you suggesting that if God exists and creates and maintains the universe, then we should expect the existence of something like dark energy?

Do you really think your magnificent god is skulking and hiding from scientists in the form of theoretical energy, when he could be shining in glory?

Strange god you got going on there, hiding from the children you allege he loves.

[Exian]

Yea Exian I live in a suburb of cleveland.

Ha Cool. I live in NE Ohio, too. Speaking of 216, I played a show with a band called (216) up at Peabody's way back in the day. They were kinda known in the area.

I can forgive you for being a theist, but God help you if you're not Browns fan.

Alright, back to the OP...

[Rob216]

Yea I'm a big fan of (216)... Ten Fingers is my jam....and I'm a huge cleveland sports fan

[Esquilax]

Abiogenesis is not demonstrated....yet you appear to accept that claim.

The repeated assertion that it's not demonstrated, shockingly, does not make the Miller Yurey experiments vanish, nor does it reduce the experimental support they lend abiogenesis, rudimentary though it may be. Additionally, I've explained my position on abiogenesis in the past, that it is one of apportioning my belief to the evidence, and hence abiogenesis gets the lion's share, though not certainty.

Intelligent design of lineages of life have been demonstrated....yet you appear to reject the claim that our lineage of life could be the product of intelligent design.

I reject it because there is no evidence of a prior intelligence involved or necessary in the creation of our "lineage of life." Saying that it can happen with pre-existing human minds is not evidence for creationism unless you can establish a pre-existing mind to all of life, which you haven't even attempted to do, instead relying on this same old equivocation.

Your apparent positions are wholly inconsistent with what you just wrote.

The whole point of the thread on belief and knowledge in the philosophy section was to show that such statements like you wrote above.....are just silly.

My actual positions differ wildly from the repetitious fiat assertions you continue to use regardless of how often you're corrected.

[Whateverist]

Yea I'm a big fan of (216)... Ten Fingers is my jam....and I'm a huge cleveland sports fan

Looks like you got a couple of pretty good new players on your local NBA team this year. But I have 'faith' that my local team, the GS Warriors may have improved enough to do even better than your guys.

[Rob216]

Yea I'm a big fan of (216)... Ten Fingers is my jam....and I'm a huge cleveland sports fan

Looks like you got a couple of pretty good new players on your local NBA team this year. But I have 'faith' that my local team, the GS Warriors may have improved enough to do even better than your guys.

Haha no way. Even if that were true your team has to compete in the Western conference which is no easy task. I'd love to see Cavs vs. Warriors in the finals though.

[Rob216]

"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?

[pocaracas]

"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?

He's saying that the research that's been done, in spite of all the scientists' best efforts, hasn't managed to account for the transition from the simple building blocks to a complete self-replicating RNA molecule.

Yes, he then goes on a tangent and says something about the multiverse... and chance... imagination is creeping away from him.

[robvalue]

As far as I am aware, "multiverse" is just a hypothesis at this stage. Although I would not find it at all surprising if there were other self contained "universes" like ours, and ours started as an offshoot of another somehow. For example, you can stack any number of infinite 3-D planes in 4D space without them intersecting so they may appear distinct.

Another nice hypothesis I have heard, which is actually quite similar to one I came up with ages ago, is that our 3D space is the surface of a 4D black hole.

Trying to think in 4D space is guaranteed to drive you mad after a while. It's just... at right angles to all three... where is it?