Here's something I came across on the chance of mutations.
Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous. There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations (Nachman and Crowell 2000).
So that's why I don't agree with that part of evolutionism
Going to keep saying this until you start dreaming about it. Evolution is not an -ism. It's more accurate to say accept or acknowledge evolution not believe.
So your half baked arguement is that God came from nothing...this is nothing new.
I was making a suggestion not arguing but oh well, I never even said if i even believe in God or not, and "this is nothing new" kind of sounded like you think im a very religious person who will deny anything just to try and prove God is real. Their is no definitive way to prove something to somebody, even seeing isnt allways believing for some. If someone truly wants to know if God is real then dying would be that fastest way to learn.
I was making a suggestion not arguing but oh well, I never even said if i even believe in God or not, and "this is nothing new" kind of sounded like you think im a very religious person
This is a debate forum, if you make a point people will argue it. Also, I wasn't implying you were a fanatic I was just pointing out that your point has been said countless times.
Also, I wasn't implying you were a fanatic I was just pointing out that your point has been said countless times.
Was my point that only creationism exist, if so, i never implied that, my point was maybe both could exist, and i havnt seen that said nearly as much as the countless times that only one has been said.
Was my point that only creationism exist, if so, i never implied that, my point was maybe both could exist, and i havnt seen that said nearly as much as the countless times that only one has been said.
I'm well aware of what your point was. However that doesn't change the fact that is not original in any way and that I have heard it many times. Hence it is nothing new.
I'm well aware of what your point was. However that doesn't change the fact that is not original in any way and that I have heard it many times. Hence it is nothing new.
Ok, i know when im beat, anything else i say will just sound like trash from the dinner table. You are good at debating, and i am not.
So your half baked arguement is that God came from nothing...this is nothing new.
Just to be fair, there's no argument explaining where all matter came from. If the Big Bang came from nothing somehow, something must have caused it. If the Big Bang came from a super condensed mass, then that mass must have come from somewhere as well. It can be argued that if there is a god, that using the "someone must have created him argument" should also apply to matter, which would mean nothing exists, which is clearly wrong.
Just to be fair, there's no argument explaining where all matter came from. If the Big Bang came from nothing somehow, something must have caused it. If the Big Bang came from a super condensed mass, then that mass must have come from somewhere as well. It can be argued that if there is a god, that using the "someone must have created him argument" should also apply to matter, which would mean nothing exists, which is clearly wrong.
Oi, the Big bang didn't come from a super condensed mass, I've explained this a few times already... time to find my old post.
If I may, I would like to give an abridged example of how most scientists believe the "Big Bang" happened. First of all, it wasn't a bang, that name was invented by opponents of the idea to help discredit it, it was supposedly more of an expansion.
It is theorized at the center of every black hole is what is called a singularity, this singularity is so dense that it effectively causes space and time to disappear, and matter that is sucked into a black hole, therefore ceases to exist. Since, if matter can disappear in a singularity, it is postulated that it can also reappear, in what we have taken to calling The Big Bang.
Here you go, a thank you to Stephen Hawking and the Discovery Channel.
(French Accent)Creationism, scientists say that an infinitely dense and small thing exploded and that is how the world was formed. How did that thing that exploded get there??
It's: he who feels snotty, let him blow his nose... It appears to be his sig, I just read it wrong the first time. Back on topic now.
What is this Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy now?
Really, that has just as much reason to be taken seriously as anything from a mainstream theology with a reasonable following. Besides, Douglass Adams is easier to read than the Bible.
