The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Look, my number is bigger than your number. I win :rolleyes:

Thank the Lord, now we can declare we have a winner:)

J C

Wicknight
like all processes, errors occur during the replication. These errors can result in a wide range of effects. If the effect benefits the molecule it willl lead to the molecule replicating better than others, and as such lead to this design of molecule eventual doing better in the largle but ultimately confined set of raw material.

When it comes to operative Medical Science, Evolutionists DON’T follow the logic of their own BELIEFS that given enough time and ERRORS, muck will eventually evolve into Man.

They DON’T try to cure illness by increasing the mutagenic or ‘error rate’ in patients.

Evolutionist Doctors actually follow the Creationist Model IN PRACTICE - and they try to restore the patient to their originally created ‘perfect state' blueprint in so far as this is possible!!!


Wicknight
If America raises a generation of biology scientists who are unaware of the process of evolution, and therefore don't know the first thing about how biology actually works, they are placing themselves out of the job market by bascially being too dumb or missinformed to work in the biotech industry.

But America WILL NOT raise “a generation of biology scientists who are unaware of the process of evolution.”
It MAY raise a generation of Biologists who know all there is to know about Evolution – and seriously question it’s unfounded premises – but that is what Scientific Progress and Academic Freedom is all about after all!!!

CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently qualified to work in the Biotech industry and any organised discrimination against them because of their religious beliefs would be both outrageous and illegal.
In fact under the Equality Acts even THE ADVOCACY of such discrimination on the basis of religious belief is quite rightly also ILLEGAL!!!

BTW I also believe that any discrimination against Evolutionists because of THEIR particular beliefs would be just as outrageous and wrong.


Wicknight
It would be like if I shuffled a trillion playing cards once every 8 hours (the average cell replication time) for a billion years. How many different combinations is that JC?

Such a process would ONLY generate 1.10 E+28 possible 100 card sequences (analogous the 100 AA sequences required for a 100 chain protein) – which is a long way SHORT of the 10E+130 permutations required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein

The problem (for Materialistic Evolution) is that, even though a trillion cards have something approaching an effective infinity of POSSIBLE combinations – they can only EXPRESS a relatively limited sequence of a trillion (10 E+18) cards (or a series of 10 E+16 x 100 card sequences) each time that they are shuffled.
Equally, if we assume that a shuffling occurs once every 8 hours (the average cell replication time) for a billion years this is only 1.10 E+12 shuffles. The product of these two figures is only 1.10 E+28 of actual EXPRESSED 100 card sequences – and we require 10 E+130 amino acid sequences to be EXPRESSED in order to get a specific 100 chain protein sequence using undirected processes.

Intuitively, we know that complex processes that are undirected by intelligence don’t produce useful results because the ratio of useless possibilities VASTLY EXCEEDS the number of useful possibilities.

SIMPLE undirected processes like letting a car run down a hill in a field without any driver in it COULD provide the ‘useful result’ of getting to the bottom of the hill safely – but once any degree of COMPLEXITY is introduced, like letting the car drive itself to the local town we know that the chance of it doing so safely (or at all) is so infinitesimally small as to be effectively zero (or IMPOSSIBLE!!).
If we apply intelligence to the problem of getting the car to the town by putting a Human driver in control of the car – the chances of the car getting to the town becomes so HIGH as to be almost a CERTAINTY!!!
Unfortunately, for Materialistic Evolution an intelligent input IS ALSO required to complex living systems to bring down the effectively infinite number of useless outcomes to a level where useful outcomes become a practical possibility.

That is exactly what Intelligent Design EVOLUTIONISTS have been trying to tell their Materialistic Evolutionist colleagues for the past 10 years – but the Materialists have ‘closed their ears’ and labelled the ID Evolutionists as ‘pseudo-Creationists’.
The Materialists have also labelled ID as ‘non-science’ and it’s proponents as ‘morons’. They have BANNED all discussion about it within Evolutionist peer review – with the OVERT pronouncement (repeated many times on this thread) of dire consequences for the career prospects of any scientist who shows any sympathetic interest towards Intelligent Design or Creation Science.

Is that denial or WHAT??:D

Creationists accept the fact that the ‘ID camp’ OBJECTIVELY includes BOTH Evolutionists and Creationists – but Materialistic Evolutionists remain in denial of the reality of both the validity of Intelligent Design and the fact that many proponents of ID (like Behe et al) are Evolutionists!!!!:D

Wicknight
Its not 3.504E+35

It is 40.0e+12 to the power of 3.504e+35

The 40.0e+12 is the number of individual cards, and the 3.504e+35 is the number of times in a billion years you rearrange those cards.

Seriously Wicknight, get a mathematician of your acquaintance to re-check your figures (and mine).


Wicknight
the human genome didn't arise out of an undirected process. It was directed by natural selection

The problem doesn’t lie with Natural Selection – which IS capable of direction in sympathy with environmental conditions.
The problem lies with the mutation mechanism that supposedly produces the material for NS to select.
The mutation mechanism IS by definition, an undirected / random process.
For example, if a specific 100 chain Amino Acid sequence is required for a specific useful protein (that NS would directionally select if the useful protein were present) – the 10 E+130 possible combinations of 100 amino acids means that such a specific useful protein cannot be reasonably expected to be generated by undirected mutations or DNA shuffling/recombination.

The problem just gets worse with larger proteins and at higher levels within living systems/organisms.

robindch

> CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
> qualified to work in the Biotech industry and any organised discrimination
> against them because of their religious beliefs would be both outrageous and illegal.

Indeed! But thankfully, they are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists. Which is why so many of them have no alternative but to resort to writing dishonest, pseudo-scientific (but very profitable!) bilgewater for religious marketing outfits like AiG and the DI!

I wonder what did become of that nice Philip Bell of AiG in the UK? Anybody know? Did he just get too embarassed at AiG's schism, and just leave?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

They DON’T try to cure illness by increasing the mutagenic or ‘error rate’ in patients.

Why would they?

Natural selection, or evolution, doesn't "cure" anything.

It evolves species, but it has little concern for the well being of a single organism.

But it is impossible to treat medicine without an understanding of how our bodies have evolved, and how the bateria and virii that cause our diease have evolved and function.

Saying "diease is caused by the sin that resulted in the fall of man" is all very well JC, but it ain't going to make people any better.

J C wrote:

Evolutionist Doctors actually follow the Creationist Model IN PRACTICE

If they did that then their "cure" for a specific diease would be to tell the person not to sin as much. Which doesn't work. Strange that :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

But America WILL NOT raise “a generation of biology scientists who are unaware of the process of evolution.”

Not if they stick to their consitution that disallows religious groups pressurise school boards into allow nonsense into the science class room.

One can only hope.

J C wrote:

Such a process would ONLY generate 1.10 E+28 possible 100 card sequences (analogous the 100 AA sequences required for a 100 chain protein)

Check your maths again JC

If their are 100 AA sequences in one protein, there are how many proteins in a cell? 100,000?

How often are protiens produced in the cell? One every second? A hundred every second?

For a billion years, spread over 40 trillion cells?

Big numbers JC. Big big numbers. As I said, much bigger than your number 10E+130 permutations. Much much much bigger.

In a numbers game you lose JC. Badly. Evolution has trillions of cells, thousands of trillions of protiens. And a billion or so years.

J C wrote:

The problem (for Materialistic Evolution) is that, even though a trillion cards have something approaching an effective infinity of POSSIBLE combinations – they can only EXPRESS a relatively limited sequence of a trillion (10 E+18) cards (or a series of 10 E+16 x 100 card sequences) each time that they are shuffled.

That isn't true. They can be expressed in an infinate number of different ways.

You are making the classic mistake that most Creationists make, thinking that life can only work the way it currently works. You therefore only see one possible out come.

That isn't the case at all.

J C wrote:

Equally, if we assume that a shuffling occurs once every 8 hours (the average cell replication time) for a billion years this is only 1.10 E+12 shuffles.

That is in one cell right? And one protein?

J C wrote:

SIMPLE undirected processes like letting a car run down a hill in a field without any driver in it COULD provide the ‘useful result’ of getting to the bottom of the hill safely – but once any degree of COMPLEXITY is introduced, like letting the car drive itself to the local town we know that the chance of it doing so safely (or at all) is so infinitesimally small as to be effectively zero (or IMPOSSIBLE!!).

True, if you only did it once. But if you did it a trillion times across the world at the same time, and then repeated this for a billion years, I'm pretty sure that out of that choas you would get a large number of times where the car managed to safely roll to the bottom of the hill.

J C wrote:

If we apply intelligence to the problem of getting the car to the town by putting a Human driver in control of the car – the chances of the car getting to the town becomes so HIGH as to be almost a CERTAINTY!!!

True, but then what do you do for the next billion years?

J C wrote:

The Materialists have also labelled ID as ‘non-science’ and it’s proponents as ‘morons’.

That is because it is non-science. Not sure about the "morons" bit. Maybe "very ignorant of basic science" would be a better term

J C wrote:

They have BANNED all discussion about it within Evolutionist peer review

It isn't banned, it is ignored, because it is bad science. Most bad science is ignored in proper scientific journals. The guy who claims to have turned his fridge into a time machine isn't banned either, he is ignored.

J C wrote:

– with the OVERT pronouncement (repeated many times on this thread) of dire consequences for the career prospects of any scientist who shows any sympathetic interest towards Intelligent Design or Creation Science.

Yes, you won't get a job. If I didn't know anything about computer science would it be discrimination for a software firm not to hire me JC?

J C wrote:

Creationists accept the fact that the ‘ID camp’ OBJECTIVELY includes BOTH Evolutionists and Creationists

No you don't, because we have already discussed this and you flatly rejected all ID evidence and logic once it was established that if life on Earth was designed by an intelligence it makes no sense to claim that intelligence was perfect since the design of life is clearly not perfect.

That conclusion is reached following the logic of Intelligent Design. And you out right rejected it because it, like evolution, doesn't feature a direct involvement of your god. Which only proves what everyone already thought about you JC.

You have as little interested in ID as you have in evolution once a theory is established without your god in it.

You aren't interested in science, you aren't interested in truth, logic or reasoning. We could list of different theories until we are blue in the face, you will continue to flatly reject them unless they have your god in them.

This proves you are not interested in finding alternatives to evolution, you aren't interested in intelligent design.

The only thing you are interested in is the dogma of your religion. This is unscientific, which is why Creationism is rejected by science.

J C wrote:

Seriously Wicknight, get a mathematician of your acquaintance to re-check your figures (and mine).

I don't need to. As I said, my number is a lot bigger than yours. It doesn't matter if it is off by a few million or a few billion, it is still a hell of a lot bigger than your number. Its so big my computers calculator flags an error when trying to work it out.

As I said, in a numbers game you lose.

J C wrote:

The mutation mechanism IS by definition, an undirected / random process.

Very true.

J C wrote:

For example, if a specific 100 chain Amino Acid sequence is required for a specific useful protein (that NS would directionally select if the useful protein were present) – the 10 E+130 possible combinations of 100 amino acids means that such a specific useful protein cannot be reasonably expected to be generated by undirected mutations or DNA shuffling/recombination.

Protiens are build by life. Why are you refusing to accept that the building process evolved along with the protiens themselves?

Your argument is like saying God must have build skyscrapers, since clearly man kind could not have just gone from huts to skyscrapers.

But we didn't just go from huts to skyscrapers. And life didn't just go from replication of simple molecules to replication of very complex molecules.

You seem to be forgetting the 2 billion years where all life was doing was getting from the simple replication stage to the complex replication stage.

2 billion years JC. Of just working on this. No dinosars, no human brain. Just working on getting to the stage where simple cells form. Trillions of molecules, replicating a chemisty level (hundred of replications a second), spread out over the world working for 2 billion years. Again, this number breaks my computer, in is trillions of time bigger than your number.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
the human genome didn't arise out of an undirected process. It was directed by natural selection

The problem doesn’t lie with Natural Selection – which IS capable of direction in sympathy with environmental conditions.
The problem lies with the mutation mechanism that supposedly produces the material for NS to select.
The mutation mechanism IS by definition, an undirected / random process.
For example, if a specific 100 chain Amino Acid sequence is required for a specific useful protein (that NS would directionally select if the useful protein were present) – the 10 E+130 possible combinations of 100 amino acids means that such a specific useful protein cannot be reasonably expected to be generated by undirected mutations or DNA shuffling/recombination.

The problem just gets worse with larger proteins and at higher levels within living systems/organisms.

1. Proteins are not generated by randomly adding amino acids to an existing protein. Quite aside from anything else, mutations do not occur in proteins.

2. Three base pairs (or nucleotides) per codon, one codon per amino acid. Our DNA sequence for your putative protein is 300 nucleotides long.

3. There are only four possibilities for the nucleotides in DNA - adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).

4. The number of possible combinations along this 300-nucleotide stretch is therefore 4 to the power of 300 (4.15e+180). We can reduce this very slightly, because most amino acids are coded for by 2-5 combinations of nucleotides - call it about 1e+180 instead.

5. Let us now stipulate a specific 100-acid protein (any specific sequence), and see how hard it will be to generate...

6. Take 1 kilo of soil. It contains roughly 100 billion bacteria.

7. Say that these bacteria reproduce on average every day, and each one picks up a mutation in their genome in that time.

8. The average bacterial genome is a couple of million nucleotides, so the chance of the mutation being in the relevant stretch of DNA is 0.00015. From our point of view, then, there are 0.00015 mutations per generation in the DNA stretch we are interested in.

9. Each generation of bacteria in the kilo of soil therefore generates (0.00015*100,000,000,000 bacteria)=15,000,000 mutations of interest per day.

10. Let's give them a month.

11. There have been 450,000,000 mutational events in the stretches of DNA of interest, in one kilo of soil, in a month.

12. However, with bacteria combining & swapping DNA, there are actually a rather large number of possible combinations of mutations - roughly 1.9e+215.

We therefore have 1.9e+215 possible 100-codon chains to search for a specified stretch the odds against which are only 1e+180 to 1 against.

Feel free to argue with the details (make it a mutation per week, say, or have the bacteria reproduce more realistically every 8 hours or so), but, as I've said before, the numbers that you boggle at are trivial. Again, the point is that mutation-driven evolution is a massively parallel process.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

9. Each generation of bacteria in the kilo of soil therefore generates (0.00015*100,000,000,000 bacteria)=15,000,000 mutations of interest per day.

10. Let's give them a month.

11. There have been 1.9e+215 mutational events in the stretches of DNA of interest, in one kilo of soil, in a month.

15,000,000 x 30 seems to be the correct calculation and this yields 4.5e8, whereas you have raised 15,000,000 to the power of 30 to achieve 1.9e215. I'm not sure what that is actually a calculation of.

robindch

> CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
> qualified to work in the Biotech industry and any organised discrimination
> against them because of their religious beliefs would be both outrageous and illegal.

...and added to the above, of course, religious marketing outfits in the USA have gained exemptions, special arrangements and protection in hundreds of of areas of civil legislation, including healthcare, employee rights, pensions, medical insurance, travel, planning, immigration, discrimination, tax (none!), financial regulation, etc, etc, etc, etc. See this article in the NY Times for further details on just a few of these.

And since you've to sign a religious "statement of faith" when taking up a job with AiG, it turns out that they're the folks practising the "outrageous and illegal" job discrimination!

Wouldn't you agree, JC?

robindch

btw, AiG have a bizarrely over-the-top picture heading their website at the moment, incongrously subtitled "If you don't matter to god, you don't matter to anyone":

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Directly linking having your head blown off with a tentative acceptance of the notion of differential reproductive success seems rather strange to me. Do any of our creationists have any comments to make?

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

15,000,000 x 30 seems to be the correct calculation and this yields 4.5e8, whereas you have raised 15,000,000 to the power of 30 to achieve 1.9e215. I'm not sure what that is actually a calculation of.

Embarrassingly, I had elided the two final steps, which were the whole point of the calculation! I have edited my post.

The large number is the number of possible combinations of mutations, taking into account that bacteria swap DNA. If we had 2 bacteria, and 2 mutations, there are 4 possible outcomes. The figure at the end is 15 million (mutations) to the power of 30 (generations), representing the total possible number of combinations of mutated DNA.

with thanks,
Scofflaw

robindch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/chimps/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6036281.stm

Danny Wallace is on a mission to convince the world that chimps are people too. He believes the time has come to make our hairy relatives part of the family. Our primate brethren share 99.4% of our crucial DNA and are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. This being so, should they be afforded the same rights as people?

The reason for this scientific showdown is simple. If chimps can communicate, cook and reason, then how different are they to humans? Armed with the latest scientific evidence, Danny travels the globe to quiz primatologists, philosophers and animal rights lawyers to investigate whether or not chimps should be classed as people.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

btw, AiG have a bizarrely over-the-top picture heading their website at the moment, incongrously subtitled "If you don't matter to god, you don't matter to anyone":

LOL ... very "scientific" :rolleyes:

Could the Creationists be getting desperate?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, the point is that mutation-driven evolution is a massively parallel process.

Well said.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/chimps/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6036281.stm

That happened in some 1970's movies with disastrous reults.:)

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Directly linking having your head blown off with a tentative acceptance of the notion of differential reproductive success seems rather strange to me. Do any of our creationists have any comments to make?

We've been over this before: the logical conclusion about the worth of the human individual is determined by what we believe about his origins. Is he just a sophisticated chemical arrangement as per evolution, or is he made in the image of God and to be treated accordingly, as per creationism?

When the circumstances permit us to have our finger on the trigger, it matters a lot about whether we really hold to creation or evolution.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch said:

We've been over this before: the logical conclusion about the worth of the human individual is determined by what we believe about his origins. Is he just a sophisticated chemical arrangement as per evolution, or is he made in the image of God and to be treated accordingly, as per creationism?

When the circumstances permit us to have our finger on the trigger, it matters a lot about whether we really hold to creation or evolution.

I must have missed everyone's acceptance that by accepting evolution we accepted that human life was meaningless. I do seem to remember agreeing that you felt that way, or believe that you would feel that way if you accepted evolution, but I certainly don't.

Most prominent atheists and agnostics are also conscientous objectors and pacifists. Fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, appear to be cheerleading a pointless war in Iraq. Which of these two groups really believe in the value of human life?

Feel free to make your excuses as you like.

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> We've been over this before: the logical conclusion about the worth of the
> human individual is determined by what we believe about his origins.

Huh? By this strange reductionist logic, do you also believe that Bach's music is just vibrations in the air? Or that Da Vinci's art is just some vibrations of electrons? Or that a recitation of Plato is some more air movements?

All of these things are far more than what they're made from. Same as us humans. So this produces the first of two questions for you:

a) Do you accept that people who accept that "differential reproductive success may explain the diversity of life on earth" DO NOT believe that human life is worthless and meaningless?

> When the circumstances permit us to have our finger on the trigger, it
> matters a lot about whether we really hold to creation or evolution.

...and question two:

b) If a christian murders somebody, the christian believes that the victim goes to his eternal reward, quite possibly in heaven. If an atheist murders somebody, the atheist believes that he has done away with that person for all time, never to live again. Of the two, who places a higher value upon human life on this earth?

Diogenes

wolfbane wrote:

We've been over this before: the logical conclusion about the worth of the human individual is determined by what we believe about his origins. Is he just a sophisticated chemical arrangement as per evolution, or is he made in the image of God and to be treated accordingly, as per creationism?

When the circumstances permit us to have our finger on the trigger, it matters a lot about whether we really hold to creation or evolution.

This reminds me of a low budget documentary I saw a few years ago, called Anthem Two young filmakers travel across american interviewing people from a gas station attendent, to Hunter S Thompson, to George Mc Govern. One of the people interviewed was a Portland based fundamental christian republican, who said ,and I'm paraphrasing from memory, something along the lines "I think agnostics and athetists should want a Christian with his finger on the (nuclear) button because in the dark of the night you want someone with faith in God and Jesus Christ almighty to make that decision".

I remember thinking, "Yeah the last thing I want in a international potential nuclear crisis is someone who believes revelations is a blueprint for the end of the world, and who believes in an afterlife. What I want is stubbborn agnositic who thinks this live is all we have and damned if I've going to lose the only life I have over this".

There are plenty of christian anti war activists, people like the Pitstop Plowshares, Quakers etc. However there are so many examples of agnositic and athetist anti war activists. And pacifists.

To suggest that Athetists or Non Religious types do not value life to the same degree as creationists is absurd. Would you care to consider the number of agnostics or athetists who have killed for the sake of their beliefs and the number of people who call themselves "Christian" who have killed for their beliefs?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

We've been over this before: the logical conclusion about the worth of the human individual is determined by what we believe about his origins.

No its not.

The logical conclusion about the worth of the human individiual is determined by whether you think a human individiual is worth something or not.

wolfsbane wrote:

When the circumstances permit us to have our finger on the trigger, it matters a lot about whether we really hold to creation or evolution.

To be honest I find that the scarest proposition of all.

Because if instead of holding human life precious because of what it is, you hold it wrong to kill because of the instructions of your God, then history has taught us it is easy to see instruction to kill in amoung those instructions to not kill.

If the only reason you can think of for not killing a human life is because God currently instructs you not to, we have a problem.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

We've been over this before: the logical conclusion about the worth of the human individual is determined by what we believe about his origins.

This is only "logical" in the same sense that you or JC would claim creationism to be "scientific"


As an aside - your God doesn't have any origins. I take it that this means, by your value system, that "logically" your God has therefore no worth.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

If the only reason you can think of for not killing a human life is because God currently instructs you not to, we have a problem.

I tried making a similar point some hundred pages ago (it must be, by now)... still didn't get anywhere.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
The Materialist (Evolutionists) have also labelled ID as ‘non-science’ and it’s proponents as ‘morons’. They have BANNED all discussion about it within Evolutionist peer review – with the OVERT pronouncement (repeated many times on this thread) of dire consequences for the career prospects of any scientist who shows any sympathetic interest towards Intelligent Design or Creation Science

Wicknight
Yes, you won't get a job.

You sure don’t ‘beat about the bush’, on your PREJUDICES, do you Wicknight?!!!:(


Originally Posted by J C
CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
> qualified to work in the Biotech industry

Robin
Indeed! But thankfully, they are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists.

Really???
Are they ALL inanely incompetent?
Even though they are CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED, i.e. conventionally qualified in Biology in conventional Universities, like Trinity and NUI?:(


Originally Posted by J C
(Evolutionists) DON’T try to cure illness by increasing the mutagenic or ‘error rate’ in patients.

Wicknight
Why would they?
Natural selection, or evolution, doesn't "cure" anything.
It evolves species, but it has little concern for the well being of a single organism.

Telling a sick person that, you believe that Natural Selection has “little concern for the well being of a single organism” wouldn’t be exactly guaranteed to brighten the patient's outlook on life!!!!

BTW I fully accept that Evolutionists DO CARE VERY MUCH for the welfare of sick people – but this is another example of Evolutionists NOT following the logic of their own BELIEFS – and actually following their God-given capacities for showing care and compassion towards their ‘fellow man’!!!

BTW creationists BELIEVE that Natural Selection actually DOES show concern for the well being of individual organisms through rewarding philanthropic and nurturing acts - thereby reflecting it's Divine Origins.

Wicknight
But it is impossible to treat medicine without an understanding of how our bodies have evolved, and how the bateria and virii that cause our diease have evolved and function.

It is indeed important to understand how bacteria and virii mutate and function.

However, I don’t understand how an Evolutionist Doctor treats patients by using his/her 'understanding' of how Macro-Evolution supposedly evolved Humans from 'Slime Balls'. This sounds more like a job for a Vet to me!!!:D

Evolutionists also DON’T try to cure illness by increasing the mutagenic or ‘error rate’ (which they believe to have supposedly produced the patient in the first place).

As I have already said, Evolutionist Doctors ACTUALLY follow the Creationist Model IN PRACTICE - and they try to restore the patient to their originally created ‘perfect state’ in so far as this is possible!!!


Wicknight
If their are 100 AA sequences in one protein, there are how many proteins in a cell? 100,000?

How often are protiens produced in the cell? One every second? A hundred every second?

For a billion years, spread over 40 trillion cells?

Big numbers JC. Big big numbers. As I said, much bigger than your number 10E+130 permutations. Much much much bigger.

Unfortunately for Evolution this is NOT the case and your calculations are in error!!!!

100,000 proteins in a cell x 40 trillion cells equals 4E+24 proteins.
There are 3.15E+16 seconds in one billion years.

Even if every protein were to replicate every second for a billion years the total number of replications would only be 1.26E+41 (i.e. 4E+24 x 3.15E+16) – which is a long way SHORT of the 10E+130 permutations required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein

Wicknight
In a numbers game you lose JC. Badly. Evolution has trillions of cells, thousands of trillions of protiens. And a billion or so years.

…….and it is only able to express 1.26 E+41 possible protein replications – which is a long way SHORT of the 10E+130 permutations required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein!!!:D


Scofflaw
The number of possible combinations along this 300-nucleotide stretch is therefore 4 to the power of 300 (4.15e+180). We can reduce this very slightly, because most amino acids are coded for by 2-5 combinations of nucleotides - call it about 1e+180 instead.

5. Let us now stipulate a specific 100-acid protein (any specific sequence), and see how hard it will be to generate...

6. Take 1 kilo of soil. It contains roughly 100 billion bacteria.

7. Say that these bacteria reproduce on average every day, and each one picks up a mutation in their genome in that time.

8. The average bacterial genome is a couple of million nucleotides, so the chance of the mutation being in the relevant stretch of DNA is 0.00015. From our point of view, then, there are 0.00015 mutations per generation in the DNA stretch we are interested in.

9. Each generation of bacteria in the kilo of soil therefore generates (0.00015*100,000,000,000 bacteria)=15,000,000 mutations of interest per day.

……all pretty reasonable assumptions and correct calculations so far.


Scofflaw
10. Let's give them a month.

11. There have been 1.9e+215 mutational events in the stretches of DNA of interest, in one kilo of soil, in a month.

You are assuming at point 9 that 30 generations of bacteria occur in a month (i.e. 1 generation per day for 30 days).

Your calculation of the POTENTIAL number of bacterial mutations produced in 30 generations starting off with 15 million mutations from 100 billion bacteria is CORRECT at 1.9 E+215 - if we assume no resource limitations.
However, such a population explosion (and consequent explosion of mutations) is IMPOSSIBLE – there are only 10 E+82 electrons in the entire Big Bang Universe and only about 10E+31 electrons in 1 kilo of soil - so a kilo of soil CANNOT produce over 1.9 E+215 bacteria or bacterial mutations due to resource limitations.

In a resource constrained kilo of soil you will have a STABLE population of bacteria - with roughly the same bacterial population at the end of the 30 days as at the start i.e. 100 billion.

Because of resource constraints there will be a population of 100 billion in EACH generation and therefore the actual number of mutations EXPRESSED for NS to directionally select would be only 450 million (15 million in each generation x 30 generations). This number is only 4.5E+8 – which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

If resource limitations were to be removed to the extent that the entire Big Bang Universe were to be made up of bacteria and each bacterium was only the size of an electron the population of bacteria would only be 10+82. In 30 generations you would only produce 4.5E+80 mutations (10E+82*0.00015*30).

If we factored in a generation time of 8 hours or three generations per day for a billion years the entire Universe would still only GENERATE 4.93+92 mutations - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

Scxofflaw
We therefore have 1.9e+215 possible 100-codon chains to search for a specified stretch the odds against which are only 1e+180 to 1 against.

We ACTUALLY have 4.93+92 possible 100-codon chains to search for a specified stretch the odds against which are 1e+180 to 1 against - and that is using a billion years and all of the matter in the Universe!!


So, when we compare the SIZE of our NUMBERS – my number is BIGGER than yours!!! Eh...Em....!!:D

….. and NO, this is not a ‘male thing’ – it’s a ‘maths thing’!!!!


Scofflaw
as I've said before, the numbers that you boggle at are trivial.

The numbers I boggle at (like 1E+180) certainly AREN’T trivial – and they prove that all of the time and matter in the Universe couldn't produce the sequence for one small protein!!


Wicknight
we have already discussed this and you flatly rejected all ID evidence and logic once it was established that if life on Earth was designed by an intelligence it makes no sense to claim that intelligence was perfect since the design of life is clearly not perfect.

What’s this all about?
Is this a ‘convert’ to ID I see before me?

I’ve heard of revisionism – but this ‘takes the biscuit’.
We have just spent over 3,000 posts with me defending both the evidence and the logic of ID – and every Evolutionist ‘tearing it apart’ – and now YOU say I am flatly rejecting the ‘evidence and logic’ of ID?????


Wicknight
That conclusion is reached following the logic of Intelligent Design. And you out right rejected it because it, like evolution, doesn't feature a direct involvement of your god.

Oh, I see ID is practically Materialitic Evolution now – is it ?????

What is this ?
A ‘Pauline Conversion’ to ID, by YOU or something???:D


Wicknight
You have as little interested in ID as you have in evolution once a theory is established without your god in it.

I can confirm my CONTINUED DEEP interest in ID and my continued position that ID is scientifically valid.

ID is silent on who the intelligence was that Created life – but if you are saying that YOU now ACCEPT the ‘evidence and logic’ of ID as scientifically valid then we have certainly reached an important juncture on the thread.:D :eek:

wolfsbane

robindch said:

a) Do you accept that people who accept that "differential reproductive success may explain the diversity of life on earth" DO NOT believe that human life is worthless and meaningless?

I accept some of them do not. But my point was made clear by me saying the logical conclusion of evolutionism made man less meaningful than did that of creationism. Happily, many evolutionists ignore their belief about origins and follow their consciences instead.

b) If a christian murders somebody, the christian believes that the victim goes to his eternal reward, quite possibly in heaven. If an atheist murders somebody, the atheist believes that he has done away with that person for all time, never to live again. Of the two, who places a higher value upon human life on this earth?

The atheist is only removing a few years from someone's schedule. What does it matter, especially if the victim will know nothing about it forever?

The Christian however has two problems: (1) He does not know that his victim is going to heaven, and statistically it is likely they are going to hell.
(2) Regardless of the fate of the victim, the murderer is violating a central commandment of God, one that brings His vengeance often in this life and always in the next.

That puts the value of human life on a significantly higher level than that of the logical atheist.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Most prominent atheists and agnostics are also conscientous objectors and pacifists. Fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, appear to be cheerleading a pointless war in Iraq. Which of these two groups really believe in the value of human life?

Feel free to make your excuses as you like.

I suspect a lot of C.Os and pacifists were merely anti-democracy: their agitation against the use of force did not apply to Communism, it seemingly being justified in defending the rights of man. But coming to the genuine ones, their courage has to be commended, regardless of their views about God.

It is the logic of their positions that needs examined. The Christian C.O.s have substantial ground for their case, based on their understanding of this age of God's grace and the Christian understanding of the value of human life. The atheist C.O. however has to import a value to man, to invent a reason for such high regard. His non-C.O. atheist colleagues have excelled in history in the extermination of the individual in pursuit of ideologies. It is the latter who logically follow their beliefs about origins.

The Christians who support the war in Iraq do not view it as a pointless war, so that cannot be used to show their view of the worth of man. They may well be mistaken about the value of the war, but they are not mistaken about the value of man.

wolfsbane

Diogenes said:

I remember thinking, "Yeah the last thing I want in a international potential nuclear crisis is someone who believes revelations is a blueprint for the end of the world, and who believes in an afterlife. What I want is stubbborn agnositic who thinks this live is all we have and damned if I've going to lose the only life I have over this".

Hmm. For a start, anyone who believed in the Book of Revelation would not think it a reason to launch a nuclear war, any more than it would be to sit back and do nothing. The Christian who is a head of state knows he has the responsibility to protect his country to the best of his ability. That may mean one of many possible courses of action.

Secondly, following your logic, no officer of state would ever do anything that would endanger his own life. Appeasement to the nth degree would be policy. The policeman/soldier would never give his life to protect those in his care. What a happy society for the criminals and for dictators like Hitler. "You want to rape my neighbour? You want to take over our country? Sure, as long as you don't hurt me."

To suggest that Athetists or Non Religious types do not value life to the same degree as creationists is absurd.

As I've said in other posts, many do, but against the logic of their positions.

Would you care to consider the number of agnostics or athetists who have killed for the sake of their beliefs and the number of people who call themselves "Christian" who have killed for their beliefs?

Many Christians do believe in the Just War, so hold it is right in certain circumstances to defend the state by use of lethal force. There are however many who called themselves Christian who killed for knowingly unrighteous ends. They are not Christians at all. The Inquisition is a chief example.

The 20th C. saw untold millions murdered by atheists - from the death camps of the Nazis to those of the Soviets and their comrades in China, Cambodia, Korea, etc.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

The logical conclusion about the worth of the human individiual is determined by whether you think a human individiual is worth something or not.

Yes, and that is informed by what you believe of his origins and nature. If he is the end result of merely natural forces, how can his existence as a functioning human being be thought to be of more worth than if he be reduced to decomposing flesh? His value must be relative only to how he suits you either way. Sometimes it is better for you to have him alive, sometimes it is better if he is eliminated. Where do you get any intrinsic moral worth in his life? Remember, natural forces are all you have.

Because if instead of holding human life precious because of what it is, you hold it wrong to kill because of the instructions of your God, then history has taught us it is easy to see instruction to kill in amoung those instructions to not kill.

If the only reason you can think of for not killing a human life is because God currently instructs you not to, we have a problem.

We hold both reasons for the worth of a human life; both its intrinsic value and the commandment of God.

Yes, the command is not to murder. That permits the lawful and just use of lethal force. I'm sure most atheists have no problem with that. The New Testament tells us that does not include the persecution of people for their beliefs. Christians have erred on that in the past, refusing to submit to God's commandment in order to promote their own advantage. Atheists have done it big style in the past century and are still at it today in various parts of the world.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

As an aside - your God doesn't have any origins. I take it that this means, by your value system, that "logically" your God has therefore no worth.

Your logical slip is showing. Our origins determine our worth - sophisticated muck or the image of God.

God having no origin but being eternally existent and the Creator of everything else, His worth is infinite.

If He had no origin in the sense that He does not exist, then of course He would have no worth.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

The 20th C. saw untold millions murdered by atheists - from the death camps of the Nazis to those of the Soviets and their comrades in China, Cambodia, Korea, etc.

Groan, come on. Make arguments without using the Nazis and Soviet Russia.
The former was a race/personality cult and the later was a pure personality cult. They were neither Atheistic nations or Theistic nations, they were historical abnormalities.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

God having no origin but being eternally existent and the Creator of everything else, His worth is infinite.

Why?
Isn't he just lucky that he got to be God.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Indeed! But thankfully, they are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists.

Wow! Despite them having top qualifications and holding down various prestigious positions? E.g: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/jumping_ship.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/boudreaux.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/eckel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3726.asp

If one came before you for a job, you would bar them because of their religious beliefs? Imagine if a Christian scientist on a panel barred someone based on his evolutionary views on origins. But it must be OK for the Creationist to be barred, to advance this brave new world.

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Groan, come on. Make arguments without using the Nazis and Soviet Russia.
The former was a race/personality cult and the later was a pure personality cult. They were neither Atheistic nations or Theistic nations, they were historical abnormalities.

But they have to be used as an example of the most recent age and attitudes. These particular ideas began to give rise in the 18th century as man began to look at a society without God, a society that ran on reason and scientific discovery.

The age of reason believed that man can and will solve all problems throughreason and scientific discovery. After a century and a half or so of that particlular idea, the evolution of the idea culminated in communism and fascism a la Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, et, al.

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime taught their children that God and Christianity where evil and against the state, which was where the ultimate loyalty was to be placed. The state came even before the family. The state encouraged children to turn in their parents if they went against the state.