Replies

Hitting my head against the wall, because time is being wasted in schools teaching a theory, and pro-evos actually think that's OK.

Any scientific explanation for observations within the universe is "theory". You seem to object to teaching anything beyond basic definitions in science classes because one past basic definitions, it's nothing but theory. Your objections would remove any discussion of gravity from physics classes, because it's all "theory". Your objection would remove discussion of the properties of atomic particles in chemistry classes, because it's all "theory".

theory = guesses scientific theory = scientific guesses

This is not accurate. A theory in science is far more than a guess. It is a conclusion reached by a consensus of experienced researchers after years of hypothesizing, making predictions and having said predictions verified through testing and observation and attempting and failing to observe contradictory conditions that would otherwise falsify the explanation.

If they must teach the evo THEORY, then they should also teach ID,

Except that ID is not a theory. It fails to meet the criteria required to be considered a scientific theory. You again demonstrate that you do not understand the significance of labelling an explanation "theory" in science.

The possibilities of it occurring by chance are devastating. "Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read: 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

What is the basis of this number? How was it calculated? This number is meaningless if the starting premises used to reach it are invalid.

You said: "Evolution does not care where the first living cell originated."

Yeah, tell me about it. They don't care about any of it.

This is incorrect. That the theory of evolution is itself unconcerned about the ultimate origin of life does not mean that biologists in general are uninterested. Many biologists do study the subject of the origin of the first life forms, but that has no bearing on its place within the theory of evolution. I do not understand why many creationists take the factual statement that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life and use it as the basis for the false claim that biologists in general don't care about the ultimate origin of life. I have not yet determined whether the creationists making this false assoication are simply unable to comprehend simple English or if they are lying.

They just want to "prove" a THEORY/guesses, any way, any how.

As I said before, theories in science are never proven. Why did you forget that? Moreover, what relevance does abiogenesis have with the false claim that there is an attempt to prove the theory of evolution?

Of course a scientific THEORY is never proven; it is a GUESS. Glad you're finally coming around.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna04.htm