I read your column about the Theory of evolution and how you deamed it fact.
I am a creationist and darn proud of it. So here are some more questions that you might want to think about:
What was before the big bang?
There are many millions of combinations of protiens. Of these combinations, what are the chances that the few that make cells are going to be made?
Well?
Nick Rossell
You should have posted this in Great Debates. You would have gotten a much bigger response, I assure you.
No one really knows what was before the Big Bang. This does not necessarily mean that God Almighty is responsible for it.
Given enough time, it’s actually pretty likely that proteins will eventually form that will make it possible for single-celled life to arise. Geology says that the Earth is about 4.35 billion years old, which is more than enough time for life to arise on its own.
Evolution is a fact. The Theory is the explanation for it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang because evolution is biology, and the Big Bang is physics. Life arising on its own is called abiogenesis, which also has nothing to do with evolution; evolution is what happens after life has arisen.
By the way, which column are you talking about? It’s customary to let us know.
Since Arnold Winkleried and CKDextHavn are probably getting damned tired (and who can blame them?) of providing links to columns, let me try to ease their burden by referring to http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbigbangmyth.html (“How do evolutionists explain the Big Bang, the fact that we haven’t seen animals evolve, etc.?” – the URL tag doesn’t quite seem to be working here). As for why the OP is completely wrong about evolution, let him read evolution sucks, and then post again…hopefully to apologize.
Sigh. Here we go again.
<< There are many millions of combinations of protiens. Of these combinations, what are the chances that the few that make cells are going to be made? >>
This is starting arse-about, statistically speaking. Look, there are many millions of lottery tickest. Of all those tickets, what are the chances that you will be a winner? Slight to almost zero. HOWEVER, there was one person who did win. Go to that person. Now ask that person, of all those tickets, what are the chances that you will be a winner? The answer is, well, it’s irrelevant because I already did win.
So, there are millions of planets out there, and the chance of living cells (as we know them) appearing on any one are slim. But we’re living on the planet that already won against the odds, long ago.
So your question is irrelevant.
Also, not that evolution has anything whatsoever to do with cosmology, other than the fact that they’re both science, but there was no “Before the Big Bang”. For more information about this, I suggest you read up on works by Steven Hawking or St. Augustine of Hippo.
Nicoli said:
As they teach in 12-step programs, admitting your problem is the first step towards curing it. Welcome to The Straight Dope, where we fight ignorance.
Others have already answered your questions. Now, will you actually read those answers and think about them? Will you accept evidence that contradicts your belief? Will you use science?
If not, you should apologize to everybody for wasting our time.
BWHAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!
David, when I read that, I laughed out loud. In a public library. People looked at me. Stop making me laugh in libraries. I could get in trouble. See Spot run.
Alright then.
Lets get this straight.
I never said that the Theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are linked in any way. I mearly made points about both of them.
I do believe in science, and most of it. I just don’t see how the earth could exist all completely by chance.
Try this for size:
If the ratio of protons to neutrons in creation were to change by more than one part in only 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 then galaxies and stars would not hold together.
If the force of electromagnetism were slightly stronger or weaker, atoms would not hold electrons properly and the nesseccary molecules for life would not exsist.
If there were the slightest variation in the velocity of light (up or down), life would be impossible in the universe.
Here is an analogy:
The beutifully created St. Pauls cathedral didn’t just appear in london one day. It gained the benifit of a gifted archetect in the form of Cristopher Wren. The same was with our universe.
Here is what some scientists wrote about it:
Astro physicist Paul Davies wrote “The laws of physics seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. The universe must have a purpose.”
Albert Einstein aurgues that (General Relativity causes) “The nessesity for a begining and the presance of a supurior reasoning power.”
Scientist Stan Osterbauer wrote “The physics of the universe and the intricate design of nature compel me to conclude that there must be an ultimate designer”
Astronomer George Greenstein wrote "Is it possible that, suddenly without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existance of a Supreme Being.
Even some scientists are on the side of the creationists.
A word to David B (Moderator): I have no problem to admit to, other than standing up for what I believe in. I am not ignorant- I have read books on the subject includeing “Beond Belief” byPeter Meadows and Joseph Stienberg, and “A case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. I suggest you do the same. No one asked you to get involved- you are only wasting your own time.
Nicoli
Hi, Nicoli! Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. Here’s some friendly advice; I hope you will take it in the right spirit. 
Jab1 is 100% correct–you would have gotten a much better in-depth response from this question if you had posted it in Great Debates. The folks over there just LOVE this kind of thing. However, all is not lost. You can ask the moderator of this forum to move this thread OVER to Great Debates, and then you can have a truly serious debate on evolution. Just post a post saying, “Hey, Dex, move this sucker over to GD, wouldja? Thanks.” and the deed will be done. You don’t even have to send him an e-mail–a post will do.
All you’re gonna get over here, I’m afraid, is a lot of sniping. If you really wanna discuss evolution and the Big Bang, Great Debates is the place.
Yawn
This isn’t really worth bothering with, other than pointing out that the “no one asked you” argument is really, really old and tired. This is a public board. You posted a comment for other members of the board to read and reply to. That’s how a board like this works. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they have any less right to post.
Interesting.
The creationist complains about my Mailbag article, and then whines that nobody asked me to get involved.
He claims to “believe in” most of science. (Meaning he doesn’t really understand what science is.)
He uses arguments that he clearly does not understand.
Ah, but he’s “read books” on the subject. Well, that certainly makes him a scholar beyond all the biologists, chemists, astronomers, physicists, etc. in the world.
He quotes scientists without understanding what those quotes mean (hint: It doesn’t mean they were creationists!).
And what doesn’t he discuss? Evidence. Are we surprised? No.
Care to give any support for those assertations you made as to the unlikelihood of life, Nicoli? There’s a few constants, like the speed of light and Planck’s constant which cannot be conceived of as changable, since they set the scale of the Universe. If c were a little larger, for instance, it would cause all distances in the Universe to be a little larger and all times to be a little smaller in exactly such a way that it would be impossible to tell the difference. The ratio of protons to neutrons could have implications on the devolopment of life, but not to a sensitivity of 1 part in 10[sup]38[/sup]: That’s nearly the total amount of neutrons in the Universe. Are you suggesting that a single extra neutron in the Universe would tip the balance? If the electric force were stronger or weaker (as long as it changed by less than a factor of a thousand or so), then atoms would still hold electrons just fine, but at a different distance. Finally, all of these arguments rest on “Life as we know it”. We have no way of knowing what sort of life (or lifeless intelligence, even) might be capable of arising in a Universe with different physical parameters.
Whilst the line is a thin one, this forum is supposed to be about Staff Reports. That can certainly lead to debate, but I’d like to keep this one focused on David’s Staff Report.
BTW, the question “What was before the Big Bang” would not be different if it were, “What was before the universe was created?”
I believe in the Bible, except for all the parts about God and miracles, and the historical parts that aren’t well-supported by the evidence or contradict other established historical facts, and those Biblical moral precepts which contradict my own moral codes.
This is how I always think of it:
Say you pour some water into a glass. Do you say ’ Wow, isn’t it amazing that the glass was exactly the right shape for the water to fit in!’ No. The water flowed and adapted to the shape of the container it was poured into. It’s the same with life. It evolved and adapted to the universe it was in.
Doesn’t this assume that the universe has properties which somehow “guided” the formation of life? So how did you come to the conclusion that these properties exist?
I’m not trying to get on your case, BTW. However, I do want to understand your perspective.
There’s nothing that implies guidance in CL’s analogy, far as I can see.
The only reason thw water in the glass takes the shape it does is it’s the only shape it can take in that glass.
The only reason life exists in the form we know it is there was no other way it could exist here. The ‘shape’ of the universe forced life to take the form it did, since other forms wouldn’t survive.
I would have to disagree with the letter of this statement, but not the spirit. Life as it exists today is the product of many chance happenings throughout Earth’s history. If any of these hadn’t happened, or others had, we might see different life forms existing (assuming, of course, that we even came to exist as a result!) than we see now.
The basic building blocks, and the basic forms would probably be much the same. But life didn’t have to evolve in the manner that it did. Turn back the clock and start everything running again, and you would likely get a very different outcome…
In which case the glass has a property – its own shape – which “guides” the water into assuming that shape.
Perhaps, but remember – the original question wasn’t about which form life took. Rather, the question was about WHY life exists – why the precise molecular combinations and structures that do produce life fell into place. Or, as the OP said, “There are many millions of combinations of protiens. Of these combinations, what are the chances that the few that make cells are going to be made?”
So, for the glass analogy to be reasonable, one must presume that life MUST have occured. Water in a glass can only assume the shape of that glass. Is there any scientific reason to believe that life MUST have appeared, as a result of the properties of the universe?
BTW, I should mention that by saying “Perhaps…”, I’m not tacitly agreeing with that statement. I don’t think there’s any scientific reason to believe that the universe MUST have produced the proper proteins, and combinations thereof, necessary to life – or all the other substances necessary, for that matter.
Amino acids can be joined in any sequence, for example. Isaac Asimov once computed that the odds against producing even a single molecule of hemoglobin or chlorophyll would be astronomical – and would deplete the entire mass of the universe, thousands of times over. (I’ll see if I can dig up the exact citation. It’s in a book that I have buried in storage somewhere.)