Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 97 comments are related to the topic:
The Francis Crick Institute - new super lab - Darwinism is a Bad Bet.
The Francis Crick Institute - new super lab - Darwinism is a Bad Bet.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 97
|
By:
Francis Crick was wasting his time - your scientific knowledge is so advanced?
your belief system makes sense - monkeys and trees. |
|
By:
believe the monkey tree story. but don't believe Francis Crick.
James Clerk Maxwell was Einstein's hero - a christian. Blaise Pascal - mathematician - a christian. All science now points to a creator. ignore it all you want. the odds are ridiculous times absurd that evolution is even feasible. please read what Francis Crick says before you post bull. the FRANCIS CRICK INSTITUTE |
|
By:
Creator doesnt equal religion.
|
|
By:
which ever one it is you chose to believe in
|
|
By:
All science now points to a creator. ignore it all you want
Even if this is true, why is the bible full of nonsense? |
|
By:
chances of being born relate to number of sperm, multiply that up
for every generation and chances of being here make that first number look small hey ho, i am here, and you are chances of us meeting here ........ is my chance of being born x your chance of being born x all those involved in betfair and internet being born = massive number massive numbers exist in probability but think of all those that were not born because millions of sperm fail .... |
|
By:
zorro
I actually am grateful because I knew very little about Crick other than he was involved with DNA discovery. So I read up about him because thats what I generally do, listen and read. Im incredulous as to how you seem to be using his name after what he said about christianity to be honest, Ive rarely seen anyone denounce religion and imparticular christianity to the extent he did. The reason I am grateful is because Ive had a pencilled in theory of a number of things, one being that philosophy was closer to the truth of conscious reward than they realised. The 'leap of faith' I strongly believed to be a reward based chemical reaction in the mind that people such as yourself interpret wrongly as devine. As it turns out this seems to actually be a theory Crick also had with respect to dopamine in particular (which I had suspected all along but had never took further as Im not a scientist and thought if it were true somebody would have stubbled upon it) Well it seems they had. wiki Crick suggested that it might be possible to find chemical changes in the brain that were molecular correlates of the act of prayer. He speculated that there might be a detectable change in the level of some neurotransmitter or neurohormone when people pray. He might have been imagining substances such as dopamine that are released by the brain under certain conditions and produce rewarding sensations. Crick's suggestion that there might someday be a new science of "biochemical theology" seems to have been realized under an alternative name: there is now the new field of neurotheology. |
|
By:
dustybin • September 2, 2016 5:30 PM BST
I was paraphrasing ebul And I thought id pretty much said that but there you go. indeed you did dusty...I think I just like reading my own posts at times  |
|
By:
Francis Crick died in 2004
How come he is making statements in 2011? He rejected religion. |
|
By:
I never said Crick believed in God.
I wanted to point out that he did not believe in Darwinism. He laid out in plain English why it could not happen. DNA disproves the Victorian theory. Darwin did not know about DNA or that the fossil record was missing intermediate stages. He assumed that more digging would come up with the missing links inbetween - but they just don't exist. Species adaption still stands. But evolving is a myth. Selective breeding of Racehorses have gotten faster horses, but their bones are getting more and more fragile. To such an extent that breeders are worried that in thirty years time their bloodlines will collapse. They might have to start again from Arabians or stouter breeds. |
|
By:
Crick did not say that!
DNA does not disprove Darwinism, it confirms it, it is where mutations are held in a system of dominant and recessive genes, they are not lost. Otherwise they would disappear as soon as they appeared like a drop of white paint in a bucket of red point. Gregor Mendel showed the theoretical basis of DNA with his pea experiments. Crick and Watson found it. Without DNA, Darwinism was not safe. If there are intermediate fossils missing, that is because they have not all survived the passage of time. The only thing we do not know is how or where life started. |
|
By:
Selective breeding of race horses is not the same as genetic mutations.
|
|
By:
I respect your belief in GOD Zorro, but you are very weak on evolutionary theory.
|
|
By:
If there was a Creator WTF created the Creator ?
Anyway I would like to see Cardiiffs response to Bedtime  |
|
By:
Who created the creator is the question the believers cannot answer.
My theory is that we could be an experiment being performed by another planet. They are more advanced than us and planted life here to see what happens. Another theory is that the life-forming proteins/chemicals came on an asteroid. There is life out there somewhere. There just has to be. |
|
By:
I'll bow to ebuls superior knowledge on this matter and let him take the floor since I've only flirted over the subject.
But I have to agree that the example of racehorses isn't apt since it's not natural selection, it's an artificial one implemented for the behest of humans. What I struggle with is how zorro is using Crick attempting to denounce a theory by a method of somebody who denounced his own. Very unusual IMO. |
|
By:
Where the theology stand seems to fall is that it says humans simply can't understand God.
Well that didn't have to be so. If the theory is correct then it is of gods making not our own. So when believers come unstuck they argue it's endemic in all of us to not understand it. Well I'm right here right now not understanding God and see only a poorly engineered theory built around a collection of untested testimonies made an awful longtime ago by those nobody knew. |
|
By:
Shab • September 3, 2016 8:30 AM BST
Who created the creator is the question the believers cannot answer. Yes it is the Achilles heel of the creator theory. I don't think it is impossible perhaps some advanced race, created simple life, DNA and the rules of evolution and then waited to see where it would lead. But to argue someone created every single life form, and a every version of a life form, it so hard to see. It is so obvious some life form are clearly related to other life forms, and may have evolved from other life forms or have a common ancestor. There is plenty of proof, it can't just be ignored. Perhaps we may in time come up with another theory, I just don't think it will be going back to Adam and Eve. Plenty of scientists do believe in GOD in some way. |
|
By:
Darwin delayed publication of 'On the Origin of Species' because he thought he had killed GOD.
He need not have worried, GOD does seem resilient. |
|
By:
F*ck me sideways. Seriously, this is staggering.
The passage that you quote from his book, Life itself its origin and nature, was used to preface an argument FOR DARWINISM. beyond f*cking belief. |
|
By:
Don't see why you are surprised that a religious zealot is a liar - they will destroy mankind.
|
|
By:
zorro's problem is that he seeks out websites which support his point of view, rather than challenge it, and it's pretty easy to find them on the internet.
it's a bit odd, when he's so so suspicious of accepted scientific wisdom, that he seems to be able to park his keen scepticism when he encounters anything, not matter how spurious, that supports his point of view. |
|
By:
TBF is that not the same as non believers with a different point of view?
Everybody reads and hears what they want to hear. As for accepted scientific wisdom. These seem to change from time to time as well. There's always someone new coming along rubbishing what we once believed as fact. The only fact is, until yo die, no one knows any better than anyone else.. |
|
By:
the difference is that the scientific method is based on falsification.
|
|
By:
Science is as much a faith as Believing in a God.
The atheists point out 'why would God allow a child to die?' yet they don't mention - chemical weapons,hydrogen bombs,GM food which nearly wiped out all vegetation in 1991. Seems science will soon wipe us all off the face of the planet. The genie will get out of the bottle. Atheist's believe Science is a wonderful tool, putting their faith in it blindly. I was an atheist for 25 years, I know all the arguments they are putting forward. I was passionately stubborn in my atheism - It stems from pride. Pride in man's achievements. I pointed out one flaw in Darwinism and you've all chosen selective blindness. Just as a christian relies on faith, you've all done the same. There are other stupid 'theories' that do not hold water. But science gets by on statistical manipulation. CRICK - “This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros!” “This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry (or measly) by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length… The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” 631,152,000,000,000,000 seconds of time in 20 billion years. If there were an evolutionary change every second there is not enough time for anything to “evolve”. If evolution were still taking place, why is there not any new life forms arising every day? It would take many billions of times 20 billion years for life to have evolved the way evolutionists say it happened. There is only one answer. It had to have all been made by a great Designer. |
|
By:
I'll say it again.
Do you understand that the quote from Crick that you've used below is used as a preface for an argument FOR natural selection. |
|
By:
I mean, before quoting that, you've read the whole chapter of the book that it appears in, haven't you?
just so you're sure you understand the context of the quote, and the reason why he brings this little idea up. this is a new low, even for you zorro. |
|
By:
here's a low - everybody dies.
whether you are one or 120 yrs old. If there is a God who has been reaching out to people.. and those people slap him away, then they are in trouble. God only asks you to be sorry and accept him. What reason stops anyone from doing this? Pride. Childish beliefs are not for me. Self Righteousness. Jesus came for the sinners not the righteous. sorting the wheat from the chaff. Blaise Pascal called it a wager. You die and there is nothingness. or there is an afterlife. a coin toss. (bear in mind that matter/energy cannot be destroyed) I'm okay with nothingness, I'd prefer it, but I know now there is a God. I don't have much faith but all the arrows point to one. God will judge people who have refused him. I expect the spirits of people who have been good will still come to him. Those that want him. I'm going to stop posting on religious matters now - because I'm wasting my time, those that are saved have been saved already. God either makes himself known to you or he doesn't - he leaves the door open. free choice. |
|
By:
he must have been very busy in the 148,000 years of human civilisation BEFORE he sent jesus down to let all those people miss out on the opportunity.
(and think of all the poor buggers who never heard about christ for hundreds of years after he revealed himself) |
|
By:
If there were an evolutionary change every second there is not enough time for anything
to “evolve”. If evolution were still taking place, why is there not any new life forms arising every day? It would take many billions of times 20 billion years for life to have evolved the way evolutionists say it happened. There is only one answer. It had to have all been made by a great Designer. You have been told what causes evolutionary change Zorro. It is a mutation in reproduction, if it offers an advantage it may survive. Look at the cat family, from the household cat up to a Lion and everything in between. Do you not see similarities? Surely they are related in some way, in fact must have come from a common ancestor. To say GOD individually created each type of cat is ridiculous. If he did he copies his own designs a lot  I have no trouble in you believing in GOD Zorro. But evolution works, and there is plenty of proof. What we don't know is how life started, I don't know if we will ever find out, it is in the future? |
|
By:
As well as new types of life evolving, which takes many generations, species also become extinct.
What is GOD supposed to be doing there, he just feels like a change, he thinks 'I have had Dinosaurs up to here, so they have got to go'. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
i am running away - i admit it - running away from the doomed.
good luck. maybe one day God will grab you by the scruff of the neck, miracles sometimes happen. |
|
By:
a cat is still a cat. were is the cat that turned into a rhino?
|
|
By:
Why would a cat turn into a rhino?
And where are the five loaves that turned into 5000? You choose to follow urban myth zorro, but never resort to the lowest tactic of them all and which is to use the manipulation of the Unknown to declare non members of your clique will go to hell, when you clearly don't know. Very few deserve what you think hell is so don't insult others with such vile accusations. |
|
By:
Incidentally I can't be bothered to track back to see if you actually did say those exact words, I simply read the last few comments.
It is interesting how you refer to energy not being destroyed. Think you'll find that's science not theology, if we were to live by the book you'd be living in a cave unaware of such things. |
|
By:
choose which one you would prefer to be...
an Ape or a spiritual being ? please reply.... an Ape? I promise I won't laugh at you. |
|
By:
99.9% of mutations are harmful. Evolutionists claim mutation is a significant part of err...evolution.
Punctuation Equilibria was an attempt by 'Evos' to explain the gaps in the fossil record and sudden appearance of complet species. To conclude..an Evo's stance is...'my oak chair was sculpted by a craftsman, but my dog is a product of millions of chance occurances...' |
|
By:
if there is a god why did the evil ******* take my dad from me when I was only 15 years old
if there is a god i will kick the **** out of him when I meet him but we all know there is no god religion is a form of mental illness |
|
By:
Calling Good Evil? Could just be a put on? but I'll answer anyway.
People who die on operating theatres say they meet their relatives in their delusions? what if you were to meet your dad again. Wouldn't you feel an explosion of joy. your spirit to spend an eternity with your dad. Knowing that a life span of 100 years was meaningless. Anger is the father to murder. God asks us all to forgive, so that we might be forgiven by him. Your anger towards God indicates that perhaps deep down you do believe. Perhaps you should pick up the book and read it. Rain falls on the just and the unjust. |