- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Darwin’s Doubt: the mathematical problem of evolution and DNA
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:02 am to AlwysATgr
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:02 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
From what?
Again the theory does not address this, but there have been substantial advancements in abiogenesis research recently
You should read about them even if you are a creationist. Some of these experiments are pretty fascinating
You can also just believe god put in place the building blocks of life and then things evolved.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:02 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
where are we? Minneapolis?
A deity created life. Prove it's your Christian deity instead of the Muslim deity.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:03 am to deltadummy
quote:
You're right. Evolution is false. A superior being created life, and the being sent his word to Mohammad through the Qu'ran.
Getting warmer. Great tee shot. Terrible putting.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:05 am to Penrod
quote:
A lot of scientists have found the time frame from the Big Bang to now to be inadequate for evolution to have worked
You misunderstand what some of them are saying, a great deal
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:06 am to Fun Bunch
quote:it may very well be that the chemistry for biogenesis just "is"...its baked into the matter itself, where simple chemistry becomes complex chemistry as a matter of course given proper conditions. what we are finding is that complex inorganic and organic chemistry is the rule not the exception. whether that leads to life is due to the randomness of environment.
I do not know, nor does the theory of evolution address abiogenesis
so how did evolution "start"? it never started, it has always been. if thats God, so be it
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:06 am to Darth_Vader
I wish Carl Sims would do his evolutionary creatures again with the power of current computers rather than those of 30 to 40 years ago.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:08 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
Getting warmer. Great tee shot. Terrible putting.
Got it. No explanation/proof of why one deity is the true answer, over another.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:09 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
From what?
From an earlier homo species.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:15 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
so then what does?
What does this question have to do with the plausibility/possibility of macroevolution?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:21 am to Hester Carries
quote:
What does this question have to do with the plausibility/possibility of macroevolution?
There is no difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:23 am to Hester Carries
Just curious I guess
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:24 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
There absolutely is not
Brilliant analysis. Astute observation. Salient point. You've convinced us all. How can anyone doubt all that analysis, data, or other observation?
What is anyone supposed to do with a comment like this?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:26 am to Barbellthor
quote:
How can anyone doubt all that analysis, data, or other observation?
curious to know why you would expect this from him, but you offered none with your comment?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:26 am to Barbellthor
quote:
Brilliant analysis. Astute observation. Salient point. You've convinced us all. How can anyone doubt all that analysis, data, or other observation?
this is an LSU-centric sports message board not a peer review.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:27 am to Hester Carries
quote:
What does this question have to do with the plausibility/possibility of macroevolution?
Because Humans can not exist in a Descartes manner of "I think therefore I am" sort of way because we ponder.
Darwinism requires the acceptance of no "creator" because it exists as a way to fill the void but can not stand up to scrutiny.
Case and point, the initial step in the "primordial ooze" is the self-manifestation of a bioactive polymer (Amino Acid peptide or RNA) but no one knows which one because every attempt to duplicate this spontaneous formation of the actual building blocks of the polymer in a lab have utterly failed, so the key initial creation step must be accepted on "Faith", which is quite the delicious irony...
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:28 am to Fun Bunch
Anyone see Brett Weinstein's latest discussion on Rogan? He goes into his thoughts here. I got the gist but couldn't repeat it intelligently. Something about genes or DNA testing variable changes that may better explain the "macro" jumps.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:29 am to Salmon
quote:
curious to know why you would expect this from him, but you offered none with your comment?
I did in the comment he responded with nothingness to. For the "smart" people, atheists sure are smug retards.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:30 am to NorCali
quote:
Darwinism
No such thing, a word designed to equate the theory of evolution with creationism, and make it seem like a belief structure instead of something that just is
quote:
requires the acceptance of no "creator"
Absolutely not true. There is such a thing as Theistic Evolution, and many religious scientists think this way.
quote:
the initial step in the "primordial ooze"
Has nothing to do with evolution
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:31 am to Barbellthor
quote:
Brilliant analysis. Astute observation. Salient point. You've convinced us all. How can anyone doubt all that analysis, data, or other observation?
What is anyone supposed to do with a comment like this?
I really don't care. The point was stupid, there was no point in going into detail.
Popular
Back to top


0










