The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

John Doe

All hail the head-whacky smiley!

Scofflaw

Considering the way our Creationist friends like to claim that Creation Science is suppressed, this article is of interest.

TimesOnline wrote:

Theories of telepathy and afterlife cause uproar at top science forum

SCIENTISTS claiming to have evidence of life after death and the powers of telepathy triggered a furious row at Britain’s premier science festival yesterday. Leading members of the science establishment criticised the BA’s decision to showcase papers purporting to demonstrate telepathy and the survival of human consciousness after someone dies. They said that such ideas, which are widely rejected by experts, had no place in the festival without challenge from sceptics.

Sure sounds like suppression - but note the rider "without challenge from sceptics"...and let's see what people actually said:

Lord Winston, fertility specialist and former president of the BA:

“I know of no serious, properly done studies which make me feel that this is anything other than nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable to have a session like this, but it should be robustly challenged by scientists who work in accredited psychological fields.”

Richard Wiseman, Professor of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire:

“Whether paranormal phenomena are a reality is mainly an intellectual discussion. But it is the principle that is important. If the issue was race and intelligence, and you had three people saying one race is less intelligent than another, that would be be outrageous. If there is not a consensus within science then there should be balance.”

Sir Walter Bodmer, geneticist and President of Hertford College, Oxford:

“I’m amazed that the BA has allowed it to happen in this way. You have got to be careful not to suppress ideas, even if they are beyond the pale, but it’s quite inappropriate to have a session like that without putting forward a more convincing view. It’s extremely important in cases like this, especially for the BA, which represents science and which people expect to believe, to provide a proper counter-argument.”

Professor Peter Atkins, Fellow and Tutor in Physical Chemisty, Oxford University:

“Although it is politically incorrect to dismiss ideas out of hand, in this case there is absolutely no reason to suppose that telepathy is anything more than a charlatan’s fantasy. If telepathy were a real phenomenon, evolution and natural selection would have developed it into a serious ability. That has not occurred in this case, neither speaker has a reputation for reliability, and it is extraordinary that the BA should consider them worth a platform.”

A Royal Society spokesman:

“The Scientific and Medical Network, which is organising this session, lies far from the scientific mainstream and the list of speakers reflects this. I hope that the audience attending the session will expose the speakers’ presentations to similarly robust scrutiny.”

Helen Haste, chairwoman of the BA’s programme organising committee

"All three speakers have proper academic credentials and though their work is controversial, it is conducted in a rigorous, scholarly fashion. We feel at the BA that we should be open to discussions or debates that are seen as valid by people inside the scientific community, as long as they are addressed in acceptable ways. These seem to be phenomena that are commonly experienced but have not been subjected particularly effectively to scientific investigation. It is a legitimate area of research. I do think it’s appropriate at a festival like this to have people who are serious about their approach and experimental methods.”


Clearly these members of the "scientific elite" are failing badly in their duty to keep non-mainstream science off the agenda. Perhaps there is something different about Creationism, that does not earn it the leeway accorded to telepathy?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Asiaprod wrote:

JC and Wolfsbae, hope you are both still with us, you were missed by your atheist/agnostic admirers:)

Wolfsbane's broadband link has been down since Sunday - and it still isn't up yet.

I have been taking some R & R !!!:)

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Considering the way our Creationist friends like to claim that Creation Science is suppressed, this article is of interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimesOnline
Theories of telepathy and afterlife cause uproar at top science forum

SCIENTISTS claiming to have evidence of life after death and the powers of telepathy triggered a furious row at Britain’s premier science festival yesterday. Leading members of the science establishment criticised the BA’s decision to showcase papers purporting to demonstrate telepathy and the survival of human consciousness after someone dies. They said that such ideas, which are widely rejected by experts, had no place in the festival without challenge from sceptics.

..... I suppose, having a discussion about the paranormal IS preferable to having to tackle Evolution's increasingly serious 'shortcomings' or listening to all of the new scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of ID and Creation!!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, it's probably safer to go to Google, put in a couple of the usernames, and click for the cached versions - the Google cache referenced above (66.249.93.104) will not necessarily have the pages cached, because google rotates the caching (AFAIK).

Given it's a mySQL database, is there any way of pulling the thread in toto (say as table entries, dumped into tabbed CSV) - I can probably host it somewhere for reference. Of course, one could never be certain that I hadn't changed entries to make myself look cleverer - but any of the mods are welcome to PM me if interested.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Here are some of the ACTUAL locked threads:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2416210#post2416210
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235658

….and there were more!!

J C

Quote Robin
And on the third(*) day, it came to pass that the Thread of Origins arose again and news of its resurrection went forth amongst the people. And they were afraid lest it destroy anew the working of the forum from a base corruption within the spirit of the index. And they were sore vexed, too, for rumour of the Thread had spread to all corners of the Republic and over the seas and the deserts and unto the uttermost limits at the four corners of the earth.

In keeping with Robin’s sentiments so eloquently expressed above, I now wish to mark the passing of Late, Late Theory of Evolution – and so I wish to place ”An Evolutionary Bed Time Story” on this thread as a suitable Epitaph!!!
Although written in an ironic style, it does genuinely make me somewhat sad as well.

I too spent the best part of my childhood believing in Evolution and all of the “characters” in the Evolutionary Zoo evoke ‘special’ memories for me also.

An Evolutionary Bed Time Story

Quote from
An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
”In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gap between the two species are sometimes found in small, localized areas. For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris, K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough that some have argued they should be in a different genera. In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other localities there is a sharp transition.”

Here is your bedtime story boys and girls, of my recent visit to the Evolutionary Zoo.

Once upon a time boys and girls, when I was very, very young the Evolutionary Zoo was full of many wonderful and strange Beasts. Indeed, there were so many, that it used to take me a whole day to see them all, whenever I visited the Evolutionary Zoo!!

You can imagine, my disappointment when I recently visited the Evolutionary Zoo and I found only the above very sad little beasties, with names that I couldn't even begin to pronounce, all on their own, squeezed into just one “small localised area”.

I found that the Hopeful Monster’s Enclosure was completely unenclosed – with not a Monster in sight. I also found that the Archaeopteryx had “flown it’s coop” – because it was a REAL bird, after all.

I went looking for the Zoo Keeper and I found him over in the Dinosaur Enclosure, MILKING a large Dinosaur!!
The Keeper told me that he thought that it was a actually a large MAMMAL Dinosaur.
“However,” says the Keeper, “the Evolutionists continue to insist that it is a hot-blooded, hairy, lactating LIZARD!!! Either way,” says he, “I have found that the milk tastes great on me Porridge and it's full of Calcium!!”

I then got talking with the Keeper and I asked him what ever happened to the “little horsies” that used to take people for a ride down on the ‘Missing Links Carousel’ and he told me that the Evolutionary Scientists had shot them all – apparently because they weren’t actually Missing Links at all, at all.

“Do you know” says the Keeper, “that an evolutionary Doctor once told me that me Hair Lice evolved from me Skin Lice?” – and looking at the state of his personal hygiene, I could well believe it!!
“Anyway,” says he, “I have found that this stuff kills the lot of them”. And he reached for a tin of Louse Powder and proceeded to pour copious quantities of it down his trousers. “There”, says he smugly, “they’ll all be ‘As Dead as Evolution’ in a few minutes!!”

As we swapped stories of days that are gone, the Keeper told me that both Peking Man and Java Man had plumb gone and disappeared – when he came into work one morning, they just weren’t there any more – they were reported to the Police as missing ‘Missing Links’ so to speak – but all to no avail, and they were never, ever seen again!!!

I then asked about Piltdown Man who used to live in the cage next to Nebraska man. The keeper shook his head and said that Piltdown Man was only pretending to be a Missing Link – he was actually a MAN with a jaw transplanted from an Ape.
Very, very painful boys and girls – and don’t ever, ever, try this at home!!

As for Nebraska Man, the darndest thing happened – he “morphed” into a little piggies tooth!!. When I asked how on Earth such a thing could happen - the Keeper muttered about it being an example of “Punctuated Evolution or something”!!.

I cried a little tear for all of the Great Evolutionary Beasts of my childhood, alas no more – the recapitulated embryos that didn’t recapitulate (serves them right for not recapitulating anyway), the ‘evolving’ grey/brown/white Moths that didn't evolve, Darwin’s Finches that are, how do you say it, still FINCHES, the Cro-Magnon Man that was a MAN and Little Lucy, the Monkey – who surprise, surprise, boys and girls, turned out to be an APE!!

A chance meeting with the Organ Grinder prompted me to ask him what ever happened to the hundreds of Vestigial Organs – that used to be ‘strung out’ all along the wall at the front gate.
“Ah!”, says the Organ Grinder, “there hasn’t been a squeak out of them for years – not since the Medics found out what they all did and put me out of business!”

Many things brought the memories flooding back. The empty perch at the back gate reminded me of the great big ‘Evolutionary Turkey’ that used to sit there, spewing forth vast quantities of gobbledygook onto any unsuspecting visitor who ventured too close to it.
The set of poor quality false teeth lying beside the pond reminded me of the needless death of the ‘Toothless Crocodile’. Equally, the profusion of Ostrich feathers blowing on the breeze reminded me of the vulnerability of the ‘Ostrich Dinosaur’ to mauling by the ‘Lion Dinosaur’.

Some things DID remain the same however, in the Evolutionary Zoo. The 300 million year old Coelacanth fish was still swimming in it's tank alongside a 300 million year old Shark and neither of them had changed a bit!!!
Equally a 400 million year old starfish was nibbling away at a 500 million year old Clam while a 600 million year old jellyfish was floating aimlessly about beside them in it’s tank.

Meanwhile, a 500 million year old snail was busily munching-away at what was left of the flowerbed – and it also hadn’t changed (or evolved) one iota during all that time!!!

As I was leaving, I read a notice on the gate, which said that the Evolutionary Zoo was closing down due to a lack of exhibits.

Aaah, the terrible price we pay for SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS boys and girls!!!

And WHO do you think I met on the way in as I was on the way out?

You guessed it – a guy called ‘Ken’ with a group of 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’!!!

So I asked Ken what he was doing there. He said, that he had just bought the Evolutionary Zoo and he had asked the 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’ to draw up plans to redevelop the site – as a Creation Science Research Facility!!!


Nighty, nite boys and girls – sleep tight – and don’t let the ‘toothless’ bedbugs bite!!!

robindch

> a guy called ‘Ken’ with a group of 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’!!!

I wonder if all these engineers bought their engineering degrees? I know that I had to work for my one, but that's rather unfashionable, even unnecessary, in creationist circles, where a few hundred or a grand or two will buy you the curly and crinkly parchment of your choice and as many letters to put around your name as you like!

And I suppose it makes good sense to buy your degrees too: if you are deluded enough to think that the bundle of paper in your hand -- whether it's a copy of the bible or a fake degree -- confers special powers, well, why bother having to work for them, when you can just buy them instead? It's easy!

5uspect

Amusing J C...

But thanks for point out those old threads

J C wrote:

I would be even more interested in YOUR explanation for the spontaneous emergence of life - that doesn't involve pure fantasy.

Yes, that would be nice wouldn't it?

J C wrote:

My discovery on the probability of life occurring by accident was made independently by myself - I told you that I was a true skeptic!!
It draws as much on mathematics as it does on biology.

Surely you've published this in a journal or at least presented it at conference? I see that Scofflaw's post about telepathy etc being presented at a conference means that now that the evolutionist suppression of the truth is weakening you can publish freely.

J C wrote:

Being a true skeptic I would prefer not to label my argument - but if you would like to label it as a "Creationist" argument as you have implied - then it certainly isn't based on fantasy - unless you think that pure mathematics is fantasy!!!

Surely someone as skeptical as you would not claim to be an irrational creationist clinging to an "old wives tale".

J C wrote:

The alternative is for science to be chronically infested with disproven “old wives tales”, awaiting an acceptable replacement theory – which may never materialise. The integrity of science demands that it honestly says that it doesn’t know something rather clinging to ANY invalid theory.

Once something is disproven it is replaced. The "infection" is cut out.

But J C let me ask you something based on these older posts of yours.
If an alternative theory to the origin of life was presented that was wholly different to the Theory of Evolution and yet was consistent with the evidence, but did not envoke any supernatural beings or agree with the literal account of creation in that "old wives tale" - the Bible would you accept it as an acceptable theory?

Is it just your religious faith that drives your "skepticism" towards, well, all science really? How is this really skepticism at all? Or were you telling fibs when you posted these comments? Not terribly christian is it?

But maybe I'm wrong, if I read through more of your posts will I see you become born again as you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour? When you posted these comments were you a weak minded materialist like myself and then developed into the J C, the creationist, we all know now?

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

..... I suppose, having a discussion about the paranormal IS preferable to having to tackle Evolution's increasingly serious 'shortcomings' or listening to all of the new scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of ID and Creation!!!!

But where is your mighty conspiracy? Is this in fact a cunning double-bluff, wherein the telepathy researchers were unwitting dupes, or willing stooges?

I'll grant you that telepathy rearch is probably more interesting than entirely fact-free fantasy, of course, which is what has been served to us as "Creation Science".

5uspect wrote:

JC wrote:

My discovery on the probability of life occurring by accident was made independently by myself - I told you that I was a true skeptic!!
It draws as much on mathematics as it does on biology.

Surely you've published this in a journal or at least presented it at conference? I see that Scofflaw's post about telepathy etc being presented at a conference means that now that the evolutionist suppression of the truth is weakening you can publish freely.

Alas, I cannot quite remember the details of JC's hypothesis - was it the improbability of beneficial mutations specifically?

forgetfully,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

UU wrote:

Yes, that's what I meant 5uspect!

Wow, its like someone made a smiley that, just y'know, like, just, well said it like it is.

Sniff. Like I totally missed you guys....

JC, baby, offer still stands one year two steaks, bottom of the Irish Sea, my BBQ......

Or do want to explain how meat degenerated differently in the last 3,000 years?

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Alas, I cannot quite remember the details of JC's hypothesis - was it the improbability of beneficial mutations specifically?

forgetfully,
Scofflaw

J C lays out his hypothesis here

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I too spent the best part of my childhood believing in Evolution

You clearly don't understand what the theory of neo-Darwin biological evolution is JC, so I find it hard to know how at one point you did "believe" in it.

J C

Robin
>a guy called ‘Ken’ with a group of 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’!!!<

I wonder if all these engineers bought their engineering degrees?

As the 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’ were all evolutionists – I assumed that (like Creation Scientists) they had all earned their degrees.


5uspect
I see that Scofflaw's post about telepathy etc being presented at a conference means that now that the evolutionist suppression of the truth is weakening you can publish freely

Not really!!!

Paranormal Ghost Stories and the musings of Crystal Ball Gazers can probably be freely presented these days!!!! :eek:

……but NOT Creation Science or ID research!!!


5uspect
But J C let me ask you something based on these older posts of yours.
If an alternative theory to the origin of life was presented that was wholly different to the Theory of Evolution and yet was consistent with the evidence,

Yes, as a scientist, of course I would accept such EVIDENCE.

Indeed such scientifically valid evidence already exists!!
It makes up the body of knowledge known as Creation Science and Intelligent Design. :cool: :cool:


Diogenes
JC, baby, offer still stands one year two steaks, bottom of the Irish Sea, my BBQ......

Diogenes, baby, your generosity and hospitality knows no bounds!!!

……and my offer of a ‘fresh’ T Rex steak also stands – and it isn’t just one year old – it is 90 million years old in your terms and over 4,000 years old in mine!!!!


Wicknight
You clearly don't understand what the theory of neo-Darwin biological evolution is JC, so I find it hard to know how at one point you did "believe" in it.

I think that I was in a pram and wearing nappies at the time!!:D

Son Goku

JC can you name a single prediction of Creation Science that was confirmed following its derivation from a framework?
And how was this framework arrived at?

And when I say "followed" I mean the chronological sequence composed of these three steps in the sequence you see beneath:
Creationist Framework -> Prediction -> Confirmation

Not:
Observation -> Creationist refutation of evolutionary position.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

I recently discovered that the odds of producing the amino acid sequence for a particular 100 chain protein by accident choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is 10 to the power of minus 130. If we consider that the number of atoms in the known Universe (including Dark Matter) is 10 to the power of 80 I don't fancy the chances of even a useful protein arising spontaneously - never mind life!!!

I haven't seen any life arising spontaneously recently - Have any of you?

I would value your skeptical opinion on the above mathemastical calculation.

That's the one. Now I seem to recall that we've repeatedly pointed out that you don't simply randomly assemble a protein in this way, so this is not statistically valid. However, JC remains simply adamant that his very large number shows how impossible evolution is.

Looking around recently, I came across a very good mathematical blog, whose author likes debunking Creationist maths. He made a very good - indeed, an excellent - point.

Evolution is a massively parallel process. So JC's fabulous odds can rapidly shown to be trivial numbers indeed.

Imagine a population of 5000 bacteria, swapping DNA and having mutations. Lets give each individual just one mutation in their life.

After 20 generations, the number of possible permutations generated is 9.5 by 10 to the power of 73 (9.5e+73).

After 30 generations, the number of possible permutations generated is 9.5 by 10 to the power of 110 (9.3e+110).

After 36 generations, the number of possible permutations generated is 1.5 by 10 to the power of 133 (1.5e+133).

So, starting with a really very small population of bacteria, we can beat JC's odds in 36 generations. How long is 36 "generations" of bacteria - answer: about 90 days.

Next time you're dazzled by big odds, remember how quickly they can be beaten...

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> How long is 36 "generations" of bacteria - answer: about 90 days.

Bacteria can reproduce a lot faster than that, from once every fifteen minutes upwards to hours, days and longer. At once per fifteen minutes, the 36 generations will happily drift past over the course of one night. Imagine what could arise in twenty years -- say, something that could eat nylon?

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Oh, yes. Evolution

5uspect

J C wrote:

Not really!!!

Paranormal Ghost Stories and the musings of Crystal Ball Gazers can probably be freely presented these days!!!! :eek:

……but NOT Creation Science or ID research!!!

So whats the difference between a Crystal Ball gazer and a creationist?
(I see a very funny joke coming in the future)

J C wrote:

5uspect
But J C let me ask you something based on these older posts of yours.
If an alternative theory to the origin of life was presented that was wholly different to the Theory of Evolution and yet was consistent with the evidence,

Yes, as a scientist, of course I would accept such EVIDENCE.

Indeed such scientifically valid evidence already exists!!
It makes up the body of knowledge known as Creation Science and Intelligent Design. :cool: :cool:

Explian to us how this Creation Science (and its mutation ID) of yours can be tested scientifically? I'm, yet again, asking that simple childlike question that not a single creationist can answer without resorting to fantasy and make believe:
Who designed the creator? God did it is not an answer, god is eternal is not an answer, we cannot possiblly hope to understand god is not an answer. They are running from the reality that your beliefs are just that. beliefs, you have no knowledge that allows you to assume that a designer god exists.

The reality is that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is the best model we have of explaining the bio-diverstiy we see. No other idea comes close or even begins to. However the theory (like all scientific theories) at present isn't complete. We don't believe that evolution is the truth, we know that it can account for the majority of life we see and has some difficulty explaining others. This is science J C, and you as a Scientist should know that.

J C

Scofflaw
Looking around recently, I came across a very good mathematical blog, whose author likes debunking Creationist maths. He made a very good - indeed, an excellent - point.

Evolution is a massively parallel process. So JC's fabulous odds can rapidly shown to be trivial numbers indeed.

Imagine a population of 5000 bacteria, swapping DNA and having mutations. Lets give each individual just one mutation in their life.

After 20 generations, the number of possible permutations generated is 9.5 by 10 to the power of 73 (9.5e+73).

After 30 generations, the number of possible permutations generated is 9.5 by 10 to the power of 110 (9.3e+110)

After 36 generations, the number of possible permutations generated is 1.5 by 10 to the power of 133 (1.5e+133).

So, starting with a really very small population of bacteria, we can beat JC's odds in 36 generations. How long is 36 "generations" of bacteria - answer: about 90 days.

Next time you're dazzled by big odds, remember how quickly they can be beaten...

Whoever this guy is, he is quite simply WRONG!!

The correct figures are as follows:-

Assuming that in each generation the original 5,000 bacteria number doubles up through binary cell division we have a binomial expansion as follows 5,000 10,000 20,000 40,000 ……..and after 36 generations this will THEORETICALLY produce 1.72 e +14 bacteria/permutations.

It would actually take 431 generations to THEORETICALLY reach 1.5e+133.

While 431 generations of bacteria could be produced in less than one year the real problem with this exercise is that the number of 1.5e+133 bacteria/permutations could NEVER happen due to resource limitations!!!

The key word above is “THEORETICALLY”.
The bacterial population explosion would come to a grinding halt LONG BEFORE 1.5e+133 bacteria/permutations would be produced.
Could I gently remind you that if the ENTIRE planet Earth was a solid mass of bacteria they would number less than 10e+54.:eek:

Even if we generously assumed that the Bacteria could utilise the entire mass of the Universe including all of the Hydrogen/Helium in every star and all of the Dark Matter, there still wouldn’t be enough resources to produce 10e+133 permutations!!!

If the entire mass of the conventionally calculated Universe (including all of the Dark Matter and all of the Stars) consisted ENTIRELY of bacteria you would actually have less than 10e+82 bacteria/permutations.
……..and if every one of these bacteria reproduced itself by cell division every second for 20,000 million years you would still only produce 10e+99 bacteria/permutations.

So although the population dynamics of Bacteria has the POTENTIAL to do (roughly) as you say – it can NEVER happen due to resource limitations – and so the sequence for just one useful 100 Amino Acid chain protein can NEVER be produced by undirected processes!!!

Next time you examine the odds against undirected processes producing even a small step in life such as the production of just one useful protein, remember that it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!

…….and the real clincher that proves ID beyond all doubt is that the above IMPOSSIBLE ‘feat’ for all of the matter in the Known Universe working feverishly over billions of years using UNDIRECTED processes, can be achieved by a 10 year old child in less than 30 minutes – such is the POWER of the application of INTELLIGENCE.

A child can arrange ANY specific sequence of items in a 100 sequence chain choosing from 20 different items at each point on the chain in less than 30 minutes – but this would defeat the resources of the ENTIRE Universe over an effective infinity of time without the appliance of INTELLIGENCE!!!!!!:D

J C

5uspect
So whats the difference between a Crystal Ball gazer and a creationist?
(I see a very funny joke coming in the future)

There is indeed a very ‘funny joke’ right here RIGHT NOW!!!

.......It lies in the fact that neo-Darwinian Evolutionists (who claim to be ‘died in the wool’ MATERIALISTS) are starting to entertain the scientific validation of paranormal and psychic phenomena – while simultaneously rejecting peer reviewed MATHEMATICAL PROOFS offered by conventionally qualified Creation Scientists and ID Proponents!!! :eek: :cool:.......

BTW, I think that your 'headbanging' smiley is very cute!!!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Imagine a population of 5000 bacteria, swapping DNA and having mutations. Lets give each individual just one mutation in their life.

Next time you're dazzled by big odds, remember how quickly they can be beaten...[/B]

Whoever this guy is, he is quite simply WRONG!!

The correct figures are as follows:-

Assuming that in each generation the original 5,000 bacteria number doubles up through binary cell division we have a binomial expansion as follows 5,000 10,000 20,000 40,000 ……..and after 36 generations this will THEORETICALLY produce 1.72 e +14 bacteria/mutations.

It would actually take 421 generations to THEORETICALLY reach 1.5e+133.

Alas, you have failed to observe the words "swapping DNA" - your preferred limit of binary fission is an artificial constraint you have chosen to introduce. Also, of course, the binary doubling only applies to asexual animals reproducing by binary fission.

Allow me, gently, to remind you of another piece of your own mathematics - the enormous growth rate, through multiple children, of humanity after the "Noachian deluge"....would you like to apply your mathematical mind to the length of time required to beat your odds under circumstances of 10+ children apiece?

J C wrote:

While 421 generations of bacteria could be produced in less than one year the real problem with this exercise is that the number of 1.5e+133 bacteria/mutations could NEVER happen due to resource limitations!!!

The key word above is “THEORETICALLY”.
The bacterial population explosion would come to a grinding halt LONG BEFORE 1.5e+133 bacteria/mutations would be produced.
Could I gently remind you that if the ENTIRE planet Earth was a solid mass of bacteria they would number less than 10e+54.:eek:

Even if we generously assumed that the Bacteria could utilise the entire mass of the Universe including all of the Hydrogen/Helium in every star and all of the Dark Matter, there still wouldn’t be enough resources to produce 10e+130 mutations!!!

If the entire mass of the conventionally calculated Universe (including all of the Dark Matter and all of the Stars) consisted ENTIRELY of bacteria you would actually have less than 10e+82 bacteria/mutations.
……..and if every one of these bacteria reproduced itself by cell division every second for 20,000 million years you would still only produce 10e+99 bacteria/mutations.

My goodness - those are alarmingly LARGE numbers! I feel vaguely threatened.

At no point do my calculations require that such an enormous mass of bacteria be alive...you are entirely misunderstanding the maths. You can achieve the results required by producing 36x5000 bacteria = 180,000 bacteria - weighing maybe 0.0000018 grammes.

180,000 isn't a number that really boggles the mind though, so you may prefer to ignore that point. I fear, though, that you have firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick, and are now flogging your dead horse with it!

J C wrote:

So although the population dynamics of Bacteria has the POTENTIAL to do (roughly) as you say – it can never happen due to resource limitations – and so the sequence for just one useful 100 Amino Acid chain protein can NEVER be produced by undirected processes!!!

Next time you examine the odds against undirected processes producing even a small step in life such as the production of just one useful protein, remember that it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!

It's alright, JC - I certainly didn't expect you to give up your love of VERY BIG numbers, and I wouldn't wish to dilute your pleasure in the proofs you believe that you have found.

J C wrote:

….and the real clincher that proves ID beyond all doubt is that the above IMPOSSIBLE ‘feat’ for all of the matter in the Known Universe working feverishly over billions of years using UNDIRECTED processes, can be achieved by a 10 year old child in less than 30 minutes – such is the POWER of the application of INTELLIGENCE.

A child can arrange ANY specific sequence of items in a 100 sequence chain choosing from 20 different items at each point on the chain in less than 30 minutes – but this would defeat the resources of the ENTIRE Universe over an effective infinity of time without the appliance of INTELLIGENCE!!!!!!:D

On the other hand, I do find the constant repetition of the word "undirected" a little tiresome. You use it to mean random, because you cannot conceive of a non-random process that is not overseen and guided by an agent - but I fear that this is only a failure in your grasp of concepts, rather than a real impossibility.

J C wrote:

Our God reigns - and He is Jesus Christ!!!!

I begin to wonder if your theology is as confused as your maths.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

5uspect
So whats the difference between a Crystal Ball gazer and a creationist?
(I see a very funny joke coming in the future)

There is indeed a very ‘funny joke’ here RIGHT NOW!!!

.......It lies in the fact that neo-Darwinian Evolutionists (who claim to be ‘died in the wool’ MATERIALISTS) are starting to entertain the scientific publication of Paranormal Ghost Stories – while simultaneously rejecting peer reviewed MATHEMATICAL PROOFS offered by conventionally qualified Creation Scientists and ID Proponents!!! :eek: :cool:.......

Are you referring perhaps to Granville Sewell's article "A Mathematicians View of Evolution"?

Please don't respond until you've overcome whatever mental condition is indicated by the group of smilies at the end of your post.

worried,
Scofflaw

UU

I wonder, just wonder, how thick some modern religious people specifically Creationists or those dumb-ass IDs can get, honestly? I mean Creationism itself is "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood" as Richard Dawkins put it. It is an insult to my intelligence, to educated people's intelligence. But perhaps I too should reject unproved theories of Evolution which after all has no written holy texts about it.

Don't you know that the world was formed this way according to Nordic Mythology? Well, Creationists can argue that the Genesis account of the world is true and correct and Evolution is wrong but we all know that it is the Vikings' from dear old Scandanavia were right all along! I mean the gods revealed themselves to them and told them how the world began and even holy scriptures were written about it! So it is obvious that our world was formed from this account:

In the beginning there was the world of ice Niflheim, and the world of fire Muspelheim, and between them was the Ginnungagap, a "grinning (or yawning) gap," in which nothing lived. In Ginnungagap, the fire and the ice met, and the fire of Muspelheim licked the ice shaping a primordial giant Ymir and a giant cow, Auðumbla whose milk fed Ymir. The cow licked the ice, creating the first god, Búri, who was the father of Borr, in turn the father of the first Æsir, Odin, and his brothers Vili and Ve. Ymir was a hermaphrodite and alone procreated the race of giants. Then Borr's sons; Odin, Vili, and Ve; slaughtered Ymir and, from his body, created the world. From his skull, Odin, Vili, and Ve created the vault of the sky, which was supported by four dwarfs: Austri, Vestri, Sudri, and Nordri.

The gods regulated the passage of the days and nights, as well as the seasons. The first human beings were Ask and Embla (ash and elm), who were carved from the wood of two trees and brought to life by the gods Odin, Hœnir/Vili, and Lóðurr/Vé. Odin gave them life; Vili gave consciousness; and Ve provided senses. Sol is the goddess of the sun, a daughter of Mundilfari, and wife of Glen. Every day, she rides through the sky on her chariot, pulled by two horses named Alsvid and Arvak. This passage is known as Alfrodull, meaning "glory of elves," which in turn was a common kenning for the sun. Sol is chased during the day by Skoll, a wolf that wants to devour her. Solar eclipses signify that Skoll has almost caught up to her. It is fated that Skoll will eventually catch Sol and eat her; however, she will be replaced by her daughter. Sol's brother, the moon, Mani, is chased by Hati, another wolf. The earth is protected from the full heat of the sun by Svalin, who stands between the earth and Sol. In Norse belief, the sun did not give light, which instead emanated from the manes of Arvak and Alsvid.

The sybil describes the great ash tree Yggdrasil and the three norns (female symbols of inexorable fate; their names; Urðr (Urd), Verðandandi (Verdandi), and Skuld; indicate the past, present, and future), who spin the threads of fate beneath it. She describes the primeval war between Æsir and Vanir and the murder of Baldr. Then she turns her attention to the future.

This was provided thanks to Wikipedia. Isn't it obvious now how the world began? Forget fake Evolution, forget the silly Genesis account, even Intelligent Design. Follow the path of the Vikings, you know that they were the right ones all along!

BTW, here's the link to the true account: Link. Oh, and if you look at that page, you'll find out the TRUTH of how the world will end - the Apocolypse. It will be nasty but if you believe in the gods as your saviours and trust them, you'll be saved and free from damnation and be brought to a new world of elves, giants, gods, godessses and humans!

robindch

> But perhaps I too should reject unproved theories of Evolution which
> after all has no written holy texts about it.

Just to reiterate a point made a while back, and skipping the irony in your post: "proved" theories of science do not exist; the best you can do is either to (a) disprove a theory by showing where it fails, or (b) demonstrate a theory by showing something which agrees with it, or which is a logical consequence of it. But you can never prove a physical theory in the sense of a mathematical theorem.

For more on this interesting topic, take a look at Karl Popper's description of the scientific method:

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/popper.htm

Scofflaw

UU wrote:

I wonder, just wonder, how thick some modern religious people specifically Creationists or those dumb-ass IDs can get, honestly? I mean Creationism itself is "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood" as Richard Dawkins put it. It is an insult to my intelligence, to educated people's intelligence. But perhaps I too should reject unproved theories of Evolution which after all has no written holy texts about it.

Don't you know that the world was formed this way according to Nordic Mythology? Well, Creationists can argue that the Genesis account of the world is true and correct and Evolution is wrong but we all know that it is the Vikings' from dear old Scandanavia were right all along! I mean the gods revealed themselves to them and told them how the world began and even holy scriptures were written about it! So it is obvious that our world was formed from this account:



This was provided thanks to Wikipedia. Isn't it obvious now how the world began? Forget fake Evolution, forget the silly Genesis account, even Intelligent Design. Follow the path of the Vikings, you know that they were the right ones all along!

BTW, here's the link to the true account: Link. Oh, and if you look at that page, you'll find out the TRUTH of how the world will end - the Apocolypse. It will be nasty but if you believe in the gods as your saviours and trust them, you'll be saved and free from damnation and be brought to a new world of elves, giants, gods, godessses and humans!

Nordics? Bah - latecomers! Clearly this is the correct account, written when the Scandinavians were still living in caves saying 'ug':

Apsu (or Abzu, from Sumerian Ab = water, Zu = far) fathered upon Tiamat the Elder gods Lahmu and Lahamu (the "muddy"), a title given to the gatekeepers at the Enki Abzu temple in Eridu. Lahmu and Lahamu, in turn, were the parents of the axis or pivot of the heavens (Anshar, from An = heaven, Shar = axle or pivot) and the earth (Kishar), and Anshar and Kishar were considered to meet on the horizon, becoming thereby the parents of Anu and Ki. Tiamat was the "shining" goddess of salt water who roared and smote in the chaos of original creation. She and Apsu filled the cosmic abyss with the primeval waters. She is "Ummu-Hubur who formed all things".

The god Enki (later Ea) believed correctly that Apsu, upset with the chaos they created, was planning to murder the younger gods; and so slew him. This angered Kingu, their son, who reported the event to Tiamat, whereupon she fashioned monsters to battle the gods. These were her own offspring: giant sea serpents, storm demons, fish-men, scorpion-men and many others. Tiamat possessed the Tablets of Destiny, and in the primordial battle she gave them to Kingu, the god she had chosen as her lover and the leader of her host. The Gods gathered in terror, but Anu, (replaced later first by Enlil and after the 1st Dynasty of Babylon, by Marduk, the son of Ea, in the late version that has survived), first extracting a promise that he would be revered as "king of the Gods", overcame her, armed with the arrows of the winds, a net, a club, and an invincible spear.

And the lord stood upon Tiamat's hinder parts,
And with his merciless club he smashed her skull.
He cut through the channels of her blood,
And he made the North wind bear it away into secret places.

Slicing Tiamat in half, he made from her ribs the vault of heaven and earth. Her weeping eyes became the source of the Tigris and the Euphrates. With the approval of the elder gods, he took from Kingu the Tablets of Destiny, installing himself as the head of the Babylonian pantheon. Kingu was captured and was later slain with his red blood mixed with the red clay of the Earth to make the body of humankind, created to act as the servant of the younger Igigi Gods.

And the Sumerians had a Flood, too! Top that.

dismissively,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

JC, how does the Creationist model adapt to animals whose genetics would require more than the method of binomial probability?

What has it found in these cases and which method of probabilistic calculations did you use. Was it distributions, measures, e.t.c. ?

Did you use a Bayesian or Frequentist interpretation?

hairyheretic

UU wrote:

It will be nasty but if you believe in the gods as your saviours and trust them, you'll be saved and free from damnation and be brought to a new world of elves, giants, gods, godessses and humans!

Some of us are already in that world, though the only giants I've encountered have been around the gaming table.

FWIW I haven't encountered any literal creationist asatruar. I don't know how the universe came about, but I'm real, it's real, and the Gods are real, and that's pretty much all I need.

J C

Scofflaw
Alas, you have failed to observe the words "swapping DNA" - your preferred limit of binary fission is an artificial constraint you have chosen to introduce. Also, of course, the binary doubling only applies to asexual animals reproducing by binary fission.

It wasn’t MY idea to introduce bacteria (and therefore binary fission) – it was YOUR idea and that of your blog writer!!!!

In any event, bacteria DO have the POTENTIAL to achieve 1.5e + 133 in a matter of months (using binary fission).
The reproductive potential of bacteria ISN’T the problem with your scenario – it is the fact that 1.5e +130 is such an ENORMOUS number that resource constraints prevent this number of bacteria EVER being produced.

The “swapping of DNA” and indeed the mutation of every bacterium can obviously produce new permutations – but the NUMBER OF SUCH PERMUTATIONS can NEVER exceed the number of individual bacteria produced – and so the ENTIRE RESOURCES of the Known Universe cannot produce any more than about 10e +100 individual bacteria (and therefore individual genetic permutations) in 20 billion years – which falls very far short of the 10e + 130 permutations required to produce a specific 100 Amino Acid chain Protein!!!!

When we remember that Sir Fred Hoyle, former British Astronomer Royal and a former Evolutionist himself, calculated the odds of producing the biochemical sequences for an Amoeba at 10e +40,000 we can truly see the IMPOSSIBILITY of undirected processes producing life – without a substantial input of Intelligent Design – and the only plausible source of this INTELLIGENCE is God.
Evolutionists may logically argue that it cannot be scientifically proven that the Intelligence was provided by the God of the Bible (and I would accept this point).
However, they CANNOT logically or scientifically argue that there wasn’t any input of intelligence in the origin of life. This is now scientifically and mathematically proven beyond all doubt!!!

Scofflaw
At no point do my calculations require that such an enormous mass of bacteria be alive...you are entirely misunderstanding the maths. You can achieve the results required by producing 36x5000 bacteria = 180,000 bacteria - weighing maybe 0.0000018 grammes.

Your calculations DO require the production of 1.5e +133 bacteria IF you are to produce the 10e +133 permutations required to produce a specific useful 100 chain protein!!!


Scofflaw
Are you referring perhaps to Granville Sewell's article "A Mathematicians View of Evolution"?

I am NOT – as I know nothing about Granville Sewell or his writings.


UU
But perhaps I too should reject unproved theories of Evolution which after all has no written holy texts about it.

Indeed you should take your own advice – and reject the macro-Evolution hypothesis because it is not only unproven, but it is actually scientifically DISPROVEN!!!


Scofflaw
And the Sumerians had a Flood, too! Top that.

Of course the Sumerians had a Flood – because they were also descendants of Noah!!

The only thing that “tops that” is the definitive account in Genesis!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The only thing that “tops that” is the definitive account in Genesis!!!

JC it has already been shown that the Flood didn't happen. I think if you are a scientists as you claim you could at least conceed that point.

I mean the only way you have to Flood happening is with lions feeding off sea plankton for 10 years or completely rotton meat.

It seems funny you would attack something like carbon dating because in a very small number of instances mistakes in the dating system have appeared (5%) and that you would then assume all carbon dating must be faulty, but you would accept something like the idea that seeds could have survived in salt water for close to a year, when I can show you plenty of examples of that being impossible for plenty of types of seeds

One can only conclude, that the stringent requirements you hold to something like carbon dating (that if it fails once I discount all other times as well) do not hold to your biblical theories.

That seems rather puzzling when you claim you are not blinded by religion, that you are in fact letting the evidence lead you, not leading the evidence. This coupled with the fact that you have been shown to have misrepresented and distorted scientific theories such as evolution (which I'm still not sure you understand, despite it being explained to you a good few times) and abiogensis, the question would be How do you expect anyone here to take you seriously?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

When we remember that Sir Fred Hoyle, former British Astronomer Royal and a former Evolutionist himself, calculated the odds of producing the biochemical sequences for an Amoeba at 10e +40,000 we can truly see the IMPOSSIBILITY of undirected processes producing life – without a substantial input of Intelligent Design – and the only plausible source of this INTELLIGENCE is God.

More misrepresentations.

Hoyle was never a "former evolutionist" He attacked the theory of evolution from the get go. He was also a bit nuts and his theories lied more in the science fiction books he wrote than grounded in science.

Also you don't accept Hoyle either JC, so I find it hilarous that you quote him? Hoyle believed life fell to Earth on comets billions of years ago. Is that in the Bible :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

However, they CANNOT logically or scientifically argue that there wasn’t any input of intelligence in the origin of life.

Abogensis has been observed in a labratory as a natural process JC.

No intelligent hand. The origin of life is a natural process that follows the laws of chemistry. If you want to believe that these laws were created by God, go ahead, there is no way to know either way.

But there was no intelligence in the way life originated or evolved. It was controlled by nature. This is been observed, its established, get over it :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The “swapping of DNA” and indeed the mutation of every bacterium can obviously produce new permutations – but the NUMBER OF SUCH PERMUTATIONS can NEVER exceed the number of individual bacteria produced

Are you serious? Are you really serious? Do you actually think this is how the maths works?

How did you do your "original calculations" that showed you a 100-acid chain had a 1 in 10E130 chance of being generated randomly? I don't think you did, if this is your understanding of the maths.

What you are saying is that the number of possible permutations of, say, 10 different numbers, cannot exceed 10.

It is unnecessary, in that case, to deal with the rest of your witless post.


flabbergasted,
Scofflaw