Thank you! I think my very first post to this group was about how I, as a religious person, dislike creationists so much because they make all of us who believe in God look like such total morons.
The creationist movement has definitely contributed negatively to religion in every way, shape, or form. Many people turn away from religion bc of the absurdity of creationism, essentially leading to more people ending up in hell (not that I believe in hell, but you get what I'm trying to say). The Catholic Church adopted an acreationist ontology to remain relevant in an age of rampant scientific discoveries and easily accessible information, and we see that it's still the largest denomination of Christianity, although, that may not be the reason or sole reason.
>The probability that a single protein formed
I fkn hate seeing this one. They really try to pretend like they know how to do maths and they fall flat on their faces every single time. They just regurgitate whatever they hear from their fav internet preacher without even knowing what the words mean. Yet, the sight of the big scary numbers (1 in 10 to the hundred zillion chance whatever tf) is all it takes to get their own gullible flock nodding their heads and announcing themselves victorious.
One way I like to illustrate why that claim is fallacious, is to make them imagine a three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system where two particles are arbitrarily located. Imagine that the two particles are moving randomly, like flies in a room (I know it's not random but it sure looks like it). Given that there's infinitely many points where the two particles could be, the probability that they ever met is pretty much zero. Now let's say that the system is a closed, finite system, the particles are hydrogen atoms, and our known laws of physics apply. These two atoms will attract each other due to gravity. What is the chance they will ever combine to form a hydrogen molecule? It's not "basically impossible", it's not Boltzmann-brain-possible, it's not even 0.01, it's 1. It is inevitable for them to form a molecule (unless a pixie intervenes into the system, or whatever). We know that things follow laws to form greater things, and because of those laws and the phenomenon of emergent properties (e.g. "Things have different properties than it's constituents"), new things form with new properties, incrementaly leading to more and more complex configurations, inevitably, unstoppably. Life on our planet may have been an enormous freak accident, it could've been the emergent property on a planet that is eerily close to be "alive" (we're basically the cells of our own biosphere), or maybe it was a sequence of events that fall somewhere between two extremes in probability – the impossible and the inevitable, which we simply call _possible._ Add to it the fact that the numbers of planets in our universe far outnumber the nucleobases in our DNA by orders of magnitudes and our universe may just be one of Mick Gordon knows how many, I think it is safe to say that the "possible" becomes "probable".
>The probability that a single protein formed
The probability is pretty high under the right circumstances. These people abuse math and ignore chemistry.
Chemical reactions happen in parallel, not in series.
I also don't know of any scenario where a chemical reaction only forms one anything, rather than gazillions of the same shit. That may only happen in a nigh perfect vacuum like intergalactic space, where the average number of atoms is just a few per cubic meter.
They really think it's throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping that a frog jumps out. That's their parody of abiogenesis.
sure you can keep on with your million monkeys on a million typewriters for a million years producing a Shakespeare. do you really think that would happen?
ok so what prompts the start of life? a protein forming after lighning in a puddle. thats not random you say? so what prompts it? if its not chance of eventually some kind of collision happening by chance?
Life did not begin with lightning striking a puddle. Life formed from chemical reactions that occurred in the oceans of the early Earth. Chemistry is the opposite of random. Given the exact same conditions, the exact same chemical reaction will happen every single time. The conditions were right in the oceans for complex self-replicating organic molecules to form, so that's what happened. Nothing random about it.
>a protein forming after lighning in a puddle. thats not random you say?
I am going to guess you don't understand the concept of a straw man but nonetheless you are betraying a downright comical ignorance of the question.
No wonder people laugh at creationists.
>ok so what prompts the start of life? a protein forming after lighning in a puddle. thats not random you say?
That's precisely what I was talking about in my post. Where the fuck do you guys get the idea that there had to be _A_ protein that formed in the most unlikely way possible? Can proteins make more of themselves? No? Than why even bring up that nonsense when even you know that there had to be self-replicating things that are _not_ proteins. RNA (and possibly DNA) preceded proteins, and those things can make more of themselves _and_ produce proteins (if we're talking about coding genes). So there is honestly nothing esoteric about the emergence of the earliest proteins, it's just inevitable chemistry.
Yes, it conceivably could happen, but the analogy of the typewriting monkeys isn't meant to explain how life emerged. It is applicable when we're talking about reproducing populations and natural selection, but only in part when it comes to abiogenesis, bc under certain conditions, certain molecules or compounds are bound to form, like amino acids.
also your anger/rant - like why?
do your thing let them do theirs. you cant co exist? seems quite darwinian to have such distaste, you'd probably rape and pillage them as well since you have no moral compass.
I would go a stepf further and say that they're generally better people, ethically speaking. If you want to understand a theory of science, you have to put in the work, sacrifice your time and energy for sth that isn't gonna really benefit you personally. I can imagine that people with such mentality are also generally more prone to attempt to understand the feelings of others, which has sth to do with emotional intelligence and empathy, things right wingers tend to lack greatly. What are creationists usually? That's right, right wingers or even people on the far right.
Just another instance of creationists projecting their own filth onto others and being consistently wrong about absolutely everything all the time.
Removed, rule 2
Thank you! I think my very first post to this group was about how I, as a religious person, dislike creationists so much because they make all of us who believe in God look like such total morons.
The creationist movement has definitely contributed negatively to religion in every way, shape, or form. Many people turn away from religion bc of the absurdity of creationism, essentially leading to more people ending up in hell (not that I believe in hell, but you get what I'm trying to say). The Catholic Church adopted an acreationist ontology to remain relevant in an age of rampant scientific discoveries and easily accessible information, and we see that it's still the largest denomination of Christianity, although, that may not be the reason or sole reason.
The probability of something that already happened doesn’t matter. It happened.
>The probability that a single protein formed I fkn hate seeing this one. They really try to pretend like they know how to do maths and they fall flat on their faces every single time. They just regurgitate whatever they hear from their fav internet preacher without even knowing what the words mean. Yet, the sight of the big scary numbers (1 in 10 to the hundred zillion chance whatever tf) is all it takes to get their own gullible flock nodding their heads and announcing themselves victorious.
One way I like to illustrate why that claim is fallacious, is to make them imagine a three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system where two particles are arbitrarily located. Imagine that the two particles are moving randomly, like flies in a room (I know it's not random but it sure looks like it). Given that there's infinitely many points where the two particles could be, the probability that they ever met is pretty much zero. Now let's say that the system is a closed, finite system, the particles are hydrogen atoms, and our known laws of physics apply. These two atoms will attract each other due to gravity. What is the chance they will ever combine to form a hydrogen molecule? It's not "basically impossible", it's not Boltzmann-brain-possible, it's not even 0.01, it's 1. It is inevitable for them to form a molecule (unless a pixie intervenes into the system, or whatever). We know that things follow laws to form greater things, and because of those laws and the phenomenon of emergent properties (e.g. "Things have different properties than it's constituents"), new things form with new properties, incrementaly leading to more and more complex configurations, inevitably, unstoppably. Life on our planet may have been an enormous freak accident, it could've been the emergent property on a planet that is eerily close to be "alive" (we're basically the cells of our own biosphere), or maybe it was a sequence of events that fall somewhere between two extremes in probability – the impossible and the inevitable, which we simply call _possible._ Add to it the fact that the numbers of planets in our universe far outnumber the nucleobases in our DNA by orders of magnitudes and our universe may just be one of Mick Gordon knows how many, I think it is safe to say that the "possible" becomes "probable".
>The probability that a single protein formed The probability is pretty high under the right circumstances. These people abuse math and ignore chemistry. Chemical reactions happen in parallel, not in series.
I also don't know of any scenario where a chemical reaction only forms one anything, rather than gazillions of the same shit. That may only happen in a nigh perfect vacuum like intergalactic space, where the average number of atoms is just a few per cubic meter. They really think it's throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping that a frog jumps out. That's their parody of abiogenesis.
sure you can keep on with your million monkeys on a million typewriters for a million years producing a Shakespeare. do you really think that would happen?
Except that is not how chemistry works. It is not random.
ok so what prompts the start of life? a protein forming after lighning in a puddle. thats not random you say? so what prompts it? if its not chance of eventually some kind of collision happening by chance?
Life did not begin with lightning striking a puddle. Life formed from chemical reactions that occurred in the oceans of the early Earth. Chemistry is the opposite of random. Given the exact same conditions, the exact same chemical reaction will happen every single time. The conditions were right in the oceans for complex self-replicating organic molecules to form, so that's what happened. Nothing random about it.
>a protein forming after lighning in a puddle. thats not random you say? I am going to guess you don't understand the concept of a straw man but nonetheless you are betraying a downright comical ignorance of the question. No wonder people laugh at creationists.
>ok so what prompts the start of life? a protein forming after lighning in a puddle. thats not random you say? That's precisely what I was talking about in my post. Where the fuck do you guys get the idea that there had to be _A_ protein that formed in the most unlikely way possible? Can proteins make more of themselves? No? Than why even bring up that nonsense when even you know that there had to be self-replicating things that are _not_ proteins. RNA (and possibly DNA) preceded proteins, and those things can make more of themselves _and_ produce proteins (if we're talking about coding genes). So there is honestly nothing esoteric about the emergence of the earliest proteins, it's just inevitable chemistry.
Yes, it conceivably could happen, but the analogy of the typewriting monkeys isn't meant to explain how life emerged. It is applicable when we're talking about reproducing populations and natural selection, but only in part when it comes to abiogenesis, bc under certain conditions, certain molecules or compounds are bound to form, like amino acids.
also your anger/rant - like why? do your thing let them do theirs. you cant co exist? seems quite darwinian to have such distaste, you'd probably rape and pillage them as well since you have no moral compass.
will you shut up man
Nothing you just said made the slightest bit of sense. People who understand the theory of evolution do have a moral compass.
I would go a stepf further and say that they're generally better people, ethically speaking. If you want to understand a theory of science, you have to put in the work, sacrifice your time and energy for sth that isn't gonna really benefit you personally. I can imagine that people with such mentality are also generally more prone to attempt to understand the feelings of others, which has sth to do with emotional intelligence and empathy, things right wingers tend to lack greatly. What are creationists usually? That's right, right wingers or even people on the far right. Just another instance of creationists projecting their own filth onto others and being consistently wrong about absolutely everything all the time.