This is question is to Dreamstuff Entity on topic of evolution?
If you are familiar with Hoyle the you should know that he and Chandra Wickramasingh the famous mathematician and astrophysist calculated the probabilities of one simple cell coming into existence by chance and they calculated (10 to the 40,000th power) years.
There was another swiss mathematician, Lecomte duNouy, said that any number greater than 10 to the 50th would simply never happen. So to zero cool I pose this statement to you any mathematician worth HIS salt should say evolution works any way. Finally to Aurora Dawn you didn't think of that response yourself either, instead of just wholeheartedly beLIEving what your teachers say. We as christians accept the fact their microevolution (adapting to environment) but NOT macroevolution ( evolving from one species to a totally different species).
- secretsauceLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
>"If you are familiar with Hoyle the you should know that he and Chandra Wickramasingh the famous mathematician and astrophysist ..."
You know ... it would help to sound like you actually knew something about Wickramasinghe ... instead of just spouting something you read on a creationist web site ... if you actually would SPELL HIS NAME CORRECTLY.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were astrophysicists, not biochemists, and were not arguing against evolution but against *abiogenesis* and in favor of panspermia (the idea that life was seeded from outer space). Even so, very few people who actually understand biochemistry actually agree with such impossibly small odds.
I'll say it again, if you actually read Hoyle or Wickramasinghe, they were NOT arguing against evolution.
Nevertheless, creationists never hesitate to quote things they barely understand.
And they never hesitate to argue from authority. I doubt very much that you can cite the *basis* for Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's ridiculously low probability number, much less understand why it has no relationship to evolution. Your argument is nothing more than "these two are famous, so you should accept them as right."
And they never hesitate to use phrases like "we as christians" as if they spoke for Christians everywhere. As a Catholic, and thus member of the largest Christian denomination in the world, and one that officially finds NO conflict between evolution and faith, I particularly resent being told what "we as christians accept."Source(s): For more, about Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, see: http://www.skeptictank.org/figlie.htm
- cattbarfLv 71 decade ago
It is nice to know that you are the self-appointed spokesman for Christians (BTW, this should be capitalized) as for what they consider fact, or are there lower-case christians that you speak for only. Secondly, the results you cite are suspect, in that one would not expect a probability given in years. As for your swiss (should be Swiss) mathematican, the statement you advance seems totally unrelated.
Maybe you should listen to your teachers before tossing this pile of crap at us. If you appreciate it is a pile, we don't have to smell it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They both were speaking to fully random occurrences. You people can not seem to get it through your heads that natural selection, which saves the good and works with the material at hand, is NOT RANDOM, but truly the " engine " of evolution.
Check ou polyploidy in plants for speciation evidence. We see you christain's never mention that little piece of information in you lengthy diatribes.
- 1 decade ago
Also, this is a question about abiogenesis, not evolution.