...JUST SUSTAIN LIFE...that the chemicals they are made from, could be assembled by chance.... are so small that it would be negligable for this to happen by accident" This statement was made by the Late Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA. He added that " more likely life was planted here" ... coming short of admitting God exists so as not to be excommunicated from the scientific community. If a man who was most of his life an agnostic, can say this, why is the existance of God so far fetched? Me thinks ye protest too much!!!
It's like this...if I took all the parts of a Corvette and laid them neatly on the floor in a room...put all the tools that are needed to assemble it on the floor in line...put all the fluids that are needed on the floor...put an assembly manual on the floor...locked the door for a million years, do you honestly believe it would put itself together and then drive out by itself??? Better odds for this than life coming from nothing. Details soon...
2006-10-25 02:44:47 · 7 answers · asked by Matt 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You guys are great!!!
First...I reviewed a discussion forum that featured Gerald Schroeder (MIT and Weizmann Institute) - John Haldene (St. Andrews University) - Antony Flew (Reading University - Debated C.S. Lewis in Oxford).
They had discussed Crick's statements...if you read my question, you will see I did not try to mislead anyone...simply start a discussion.
Second, of course, I am a liar and want to prove my point no matter what, even if I have to insult you and your character....this is far from the truth! I am recovering from an operation and just want to have a discussion with my fellow human beings...that's it. I love your answers...this is such a great forum and a lot of fun.
God bless you all!
2006-10-25 03:33:44 · update #1
No one claims cells are the result of random chance. Natural Selection is the furthest thing from being random. This is just another dishonest creationist straw-man argument. When will creationists ever learn what evolution is about. Don't argue about something when you clearly no nothing about it.
And about Crick's so called quote: I notice you did not provide any link of Crick's writings. Given the tendency of creationists to lie and take statements out of context, I have no reason to believe he actually said that without anything to verify it. For all I know you just pulled that quote off of another lying creationist web site.
2006-10-25 02:50:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, this argument has been failing for years. the car one is a stupid argument, because the parts have never had an independent existence, and have never been put through the mill of survival to come up with adaptations.
What you seem to forget is that the environment itself is an agent causing change. Your locked garage has no such influence.
It also, as usual, neatly avoids the awkward question - where did your god come from? Did it assemble itself by accident? Or was it designed? In which case, why do you prey to the oily rag, not the engineer?
If your god, according to you could have happened by accident, or chance, then why not an assemblage of chemicals?
2006-10-25 09:52:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
So one person, out of a miniscule handful of scientists who don't agree with evolution, is sufficient to dismiss it? What makes his opinion/hypothesis more or less valid than the overwhelming number of people who see the truth of it?
Did Watson & Crick do research into evolutionary biology? Or were they biochemists? Two seperate fields joined only by their interest in the organic molecules of life.
In short -- Crick's statement was one of personal belief, NOT scientific research. Science isn't a popularity contest. Science isn't about who has tenure and who doesn't -- many theories established by the giants were brought low by a lowly undergrad who saw something differently. For example, the method for trisecting a line was discovered -- by a high school student. Does that mean that all the geometry professors before that method was discovered were idiots? Or does it mean they just lacked a certain view point?
And if lacking a certain viewpoint is sufficent to leave math teachers ignorant of what turned out to be a simple and elegant solution, how much more a scientist outside his field?
2006-10-25 09:53:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Imagine skin, bones, hair, eyes, ears, vital organs, blood vessels, arms, legs, fingers, toes, nerves, glands etc being left alone in a womb for 9 months. Would the baby be able to assemble itself and 'drive out by itself'?
2006-10-25 09:57:00 · answer #4 · answered by Eureka! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Crick was a famous atheist. You have quoted him out of context. He was speaking of "Panspermia," an idea that life was planted from an extraterrestrial source, such as Mars.
Sorry, dude. Nothing at all to do with religion.
My question is why did you knowingly misquote him? I thought "bearing false witness" was a sin!
2006-10-25 09:53:57 · answer #5 · answered by Brendan G 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Christians trying to talk science - priceless
2006-10-25 09:55:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is voodoo science. Life can't evolve from non-life, so evolution can't explain how the very first life form (whatever it was) came into existence.
2006-10-25 09:53:51 · answer #7 · answered by Born Again Christian 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋