No, OUG. I agree with you!

The theory of evolution is the master key that ties together dozens of other scientific fields that once seemed disparate. It as an elegant and simple explication of the extreme diversity and yet fundamental similarity of life on Earth, it is completely predictive under all circumstances, and concerted attempts by the greatest minds of the last three generations have failed to even dent the central hypothesis.

But so what? As you and I know, there are some data at the fringes which cannot be observed, so it remains a theory. 99.99% accuracy means there's a 0.01% margin for error, which is the same as 100%! Evolution is a lie!

Since evolution is a crock, there is only one other plausible explanation: the Great Cat Queen, Maeve, created the universe last Thursday and, in Her wisdom, gave us memories of a longer history.

Those who are faithful will be recieved into paradise next Thursday.

Amen.

Sancho,

Thursday's no good for me as I have made other arrangements and still need to get my affairs in order.

Is there another sect I can join that insists it's happening on Saturday?

(Love your work)

UOG<<yes..but we are talking about this star, and these planets[and moons]of which but one has life..as a proven certainty>>

Confirmation bias. You don’t know of any other planets with life, so assume there are not.

UOG<<so we are talking about molecular life..genesis by randon collision.. sort of reminds me of the abgensis no one can validate from the last debate on abiogensis... then as now it is a speculative statement [that begs for proof],have we such proof?>>

See the Urey-Miller experiments and the Oro and Kimball experiments.

UOG<< i would hesitate to ask how long this universe egsisated [in your mind]from the big bang[that ever looks less likely]that perhaps has had 13 billion or so odd years to create us in this moment in time[noting humans claim to have 'evolved but less than 100,000 years ago, and that apes egsisted for over half a billion>>

Universe 13.7 billion years old. Earth 4.5 billion years old. Assume you need a firm surface and ideal temperature range for evolution to occur.

UOG<<i wont rehash the facts we didnt get sorted out last time[re evolution into new genus NEVER having been recorded or observed[or how the species varies within its specie mean, but they are all as you know unresolvable[or if resoplved remain unreplied at that last topic posting>>

Species and Genus are artificial human constructs in our attempt to order the world around us. The process of separation happens so imperceptibly, that you wouldn’t notice a new species being formed until some thousands of years afterwards.

UOG<< my dear brother please present your proofs?HOMOsap proves just what EGSACTLY, natural selection[evolution of SPECIES?]your a trained scientist, give ius some faulsifiable science FACT of evolutionary process

if fact prove it

if ...''for the lack of any 'intelligent' design'.. prove it>>

For lack of intelligent design try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders Prove these were intelligently designed.

Thanks for the link eftfnc. It is too late for me now, I (or more correctly, my wife as what I do doesn’t matter) will not be having more children. If we had known what the mutation was at the time and if there was a gene therapy to repair it, we would certainly have considered it.

KMB,

Your monkeys on typewriters analogy is so wrong in so many ways.

The random allocation of letters in a sonnet does not get to 1 e690 so the calculation you quote is cr*p. Either you or someone who told you made it up.

This is another example of the pseudo scientific drivel trumped up by the proponents of creation and ID.

As how life started exactly 4.5bn years ago is going to take some time to unravel, so until then, calculating the odds is pure conjecture.

Democritus,
I don't take credit for the monkeys on typewriters analogy. It is nevertheless often used to validate the concept of the chance occurrence of life and was not "trumped up by the proponents of creation and ID".
I likewise don't take credit for the calculations of the chance of arriving at a Shakespearean sonnet as 1 in 1E690.
These are attributable to physicist and Christian apologist Gerry Schroeder so I wouldn't immediately discard them as "pseudo scientific drivel" as you have done.
In fact I decided to work it out for myself.
Schroeder based his calculations on 488 letters. He must have been conservative because my word count on the sonnet he chose "Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?" revealed 508 characters or 622 including spaces.
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonn01.htm
Nevertheless going with his conservative count and his conservative assumption that the keyboards contain only letters and hence only 26 possibilities we have 26^488 which equates to 3.2e+690.
I guess he was being conservative on all counts.
If we take the actual number of keys on (my) keyboard and include spaces we arrive at 88^622 = 2.9e+1209, a number even more mind boggling.
Where I do agree with you is that "calculating the odds is pure conjecture".