The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

robindch said:

> The visions of the OT prophets [...] are examples of the metaphoric.

Oh, so Genesis is metaphorical then? Last week, you said it wasn't. How come it's changed?

You really should pay attention. Genesis is not one of the prophetic visions. It is written as historical record: Genesis 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, .

Prophetic visions are set out like: Isaiah 2:1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
Thatthe mountain of the LORD’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Quote Son Goku
Tell me how from the hypothesis of the fall of man in Eden, you can tell me the amount of malignant DNA in the chimpanzee genome. With the relevant equations.

I have to say that measuring Chimp defects is currently NOT a priority for Creation Science research. With a limited budget, we have more pressing research imperatives.

However, if the paper that you are referring to is published, Creation Science will do a standard review of its contents, noting any salient findings that it may contain.

Eh, JC earlier you said:

J C wrote:

Analogous regression calculations have been performed on Mitochondrial DNA by both Evolutionary and Creation Scientists.

So have Creationists performed regression calculations or not?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

But Creationism's former arguments have also not been refuted. The position has not been abandoned by thousands of scientists, who are just as able as their opponents, so your blanket claim is unfounded.

Wolfsbane, that's hundreds, not 'thousands'. We keep having to go over this ground with you. You're not in a majority, you're not even in a sizeable minority, and if you're right, then it doesn't matter how many scientists support your position. In addition, very few even of the handful that support creationism are in relevant disciplines.

To continue making this claim is deliberately misleading, because you simply cannot produce these 'thousands of scientists', despite the highly politicised nature of your position. As you have failed to support this contention (except by 'voting the graveyard'), then continuing to make it will eventually get you labelled as a liar.

coolly,
Scofflaw

robindch

> The prophecy of God to Mankind that He would be incarnated and born of
> a virgin to save Humanity has echoes in the legends of other cultures [...]
> In many cultures it has been degraded to the status of legend.

What an amazing trick of god to have the foresight to plant "degraded" legends in religions like Zoroastrianism which existed long before Isaiah, so that the several authors collectively known as "Isaiah" could nick Zoroaster's work, change a few names, and produce a whole new prophecy for the price of an old one (unused).

Another fine example of conspicuous Zoroastrian foresight is belief that a saviour was to be born to a virgin, and that this guy would save the dead by raising them back to life and a final judgment.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Isaiah-collective weren't so much literal prophets but literary pirates!

robindch

> You're not in a majority, you're not even in a sizeable minority

Even Stephen Meyer, the chief propagandist from the Discovery I]sic[/I Institute, could only claim the support of 450 "scientists" on the Horizon program the other night. This is way less even than the 700 which I've been claiming, based upon the Gallup Poll some years back. Looks like the very few scientsts who support Creationism are abandoning it in droves!

J C

Quote Morbert
Calcite is nowhere near soluble enough to form the stalactites we see in just 5,000 years. Yes, rates vary, but nowhere near enough to allow such rapid formation.

How then do you explain the vast differences in stalactite sizes in the same (undisturbed i.e. previously sealed) cave.

Calcite formation rates DO vary ENORMOUSLY – with large stalactites often several million times larger than smaller ones – yet they are all in the same cave and therefore the same 'age'.

Calcium Hydroxide is also available in caves where previously-heated Limestone is present anywhere within the formation.


Quote Morbert
Oxygen isotope levels in stalactites, for example, correlate with predicted ice-ages.

There was only one large-scale ice age – and it’s glaciers did retreat and advance a few times in localised areas. Indeed such retreats and advances are still observable in ‘permanent Glaciers’ in mountainous regions today.

Even if you don’t believe me, that there was only one large-scale Ice Age – please consider how structures as delicate as stalactites (and their oxygen isotope levels) would survive the onslaught of repeated massive quantities of melt-waters (filling/flowing through these caves) during repeated ice ages, if you belief in multiple Ice Ages is correct. Please note that there is little if any damage to stalactites noted in sealed caves that are opened for the first time.

Oxygen isotopes may correlate with PREDICTED ice-ages. However, they DON’T obviously correlate with the ACTUAL ice-age itself.


Quote Morbert
With conservative figures, self replicating peptides can form quite rapidly (in the space of tens of years). And from these, in about 1 million years, various primitive sequences and a large chunk of complex self-replicating peptides can form, many of which would be considered primitive proteins. So, already we know that the formation of basic self-replicators is quite plausible, and I haven't even touched on the fact that the number of possible self-replicators is huge, reducing the probability even further. These basic replicators then provide the "scaffolding" for chemical hypercycles and probionts and, inevitably, primitive organisms.

’Show me the Money’ as Eddie Hobbes might say. Where are these putative structures today?

They should all still be here ‘banging away’ – or why did all of this frantic ‘auto-creation’ suddenly (and conveniently) stop?

Quote Morbert
Natural selection (coupled with the laws of chemistry) can indeed construct such apparently irreducible structures. Now, you say you are dealing with a primitive life form, but let's go further back in the history of life. Let's go back to peptides and self-replicating polymers, which can have chains as little as 32 amino acids long.

Now, the probability of such a chain forming in one fell swoop is still incredibly low (Though nowhere near as low as the first primitve organisms in your above example).

Again ‘Show me the Money’ – science is evidentially based and all of this is conjecture.


Quote Morbert
These basic replicators then provide the "scaffolding" for chemical hypercycles and probionts and, inevitably, primitive organisms.

Once the basic functioning templates are there, the structures you refer to as irreducible, can form via gradaul steps as various amino acids are substituted and functions are changed.

Once again ‘Show me the Money’ – science is evidentially based and all of this is conjecture.


Quote Morbert
But we must remember that, although we are dealing with a chance of 1/Some inconceivably high number, the number of 'trials' is far far higher.

NOT SO.

Sir Fred Hoyle, former Astronomer Royal, calculated the probability of the amino acid sequences of the bio-molecules in an Amoeba being produced by undirected chemical processes to be 10^-40,000.

Equally, it is observed that there are 20 common amino acids used in protein synthesis. If such synthesis was achieved using undirected processes then such a ‘blind’ system would have to ‘try’ every possible combination of amino acid to produce a useful protein eventually. It is also observed that you cannot ‘work up’ to a critical amino acid sequence – the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work. In addition, there are very limited numbers of useful proteins observed in nature (of the order of tens of thousands).

The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.
This is a number significantly greater than the number of seconds required for a snail to transport all of the matter in the known Universe bringing ONE ELECTRON at a time from one side of the universe to the other side (as measured by the Cosmic Event Horizon) and back again. If, a putative snail made a 40,000,000,000 light year ‘round trip with EACH of the 10^82 electrons in the known Universe, going at a very slow ‘snails pace' of 1 centimetre per hour it would only take 10^114 SECONDS to perform such a feat!!!!

I am therefore at a complete loss to describe what size of number 10^130 is. All that I can say is that it is so large as to be a mathematical impossibility even if all of the matter and time in the Universe were to be utilised in the process.

As for Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation for the undirected production of the bio-molecular sequences found in an Amoeba of 10^40,000 – there is absolutely nothing that I can even begin to imagine that would remotely describe this massive number!!!!

Chemistry Laws cannot assist in the process either, because it is observed that many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of amazingly specialised enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions by other equally complex and specific enzymes. That is why protein molecules that are split into short chains of amino acids are NEVER observed to spontaneously re-form into useful proteins using the (supposedly) "well known attraction of Carbon” as a previous participant on another thread has characterised it. It is also one of the reasons why death is an irreversible physical process and why the spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

The really devastating thing about the above ‘Universe Defeating’ problem is that a 10 year old child of normal intelligence would take less than 20 minutes to arrange ANY specified sequence of 100 bricks representing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from a box of mixed bricks representing all 20 amino acids. What would clearly defeat every electron in the known universe randomly producing a 100 amino acid sequences for an effective eternity of time could be accomplished by a 10 year old in 20 minutes – such is the importance of APPLIED INTELLIGENCE to the creation of a simple protein sequence.


Quote Morbert
the term "irreducible" is misapplied, because these systems are only irreducible in the context of their modern structures

They are irreducibly complex forwards and backwards.

Even if, by some miracle, a 20 chain amino acid peptide were to be formed, it would be useless on it’s own and the ‘useless combinational space’ between this molecule and any other useful molecule is so vast that defeat every atom in the entire Universe to make enough combinations to ‘cross’ it .

It is now known that there are sections of the amino acid chain that are ‘critical’. These are the sections of the amino acid chain where even one ‘incorrect’ amino acid will fundamentally change the three dimensional shape of the protein thereby rendering it biologically useless. Because the exact amino acid sequence works and all other sequences don’t work at all, you cannot ‘work up’ to the correct sequence using Natural Selection – you either hit the jackpot or it is functionally useless.

The latest research into how DNA actually works shows massively complex and little understood interactions between different DNA strands as well as frame shifting abilities of mind numbing complexity. In addition, the exact same DNA sequence can specify completely different structures in different organisms. It is as if we ‘climbed Mount Everest’ when we decoded the Human Genome only to find an even higher ‘mountain’ of complex DNA interactions awaiting us when we got there.

The luxury of being supposedly able to have 10^130 attempts to produce the correct critical amino acid sequence for a particular protein cannot exist in practice because there are only 10^82 electrons in the known Universe – and every unsuccessful attempt would be likely to result in a dead organism (even if it had gotten all of it’s other proteins perfected at the time, thereby setting back not only progress in relation to one protein - but progress in relation to ALL proteins and indeed all other bio-molecules).
Natural selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.

.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

How then do you explain the vast differences in stalactite sizes in the same (undisturbed i.e. previously sealed) cave.

Calcite formation rates DO vary ENORMOUSLY – with large stalactites often several million times larger than smaller ones – yet they are all in the same cave and therefore the same 'age'.

Calcium Hydroxide is also available in caves where previously-heated Limestone is present anywhere within the formation.

Dear oh dear. Even if we assumed (to be kind to you) that the smallest stalactite was say 1cm long, your "several million times larger" (using 3000000 to be kind, again) give a 75m stalactite. The longest known is 20m.

And the heated calcium hydroxide? What are you suggesting? Surely not metamorphosis, since that doesn't produce calcium hydroxide. Possibly dwarves with blowtorches?

JC wrote:

The luxury of being supposedly able to have 10^130 attempts to produce the correct critical amino acid sequence for a particular protein cannot exist in practice because there are only 10^82 electrons in the known Universe

Oh please! This one has been debunked more times than Bigfoot. Read Morbert's posts, on this actual page right here, where he deals with this. Simply repeating your claims ad nauseam when they're shown to be false is neither science nor debate. In any case, you appear to be comparing a time-dependent probability to an electron, for reasons entirely obscure (possibly the fact that they're both big numbers?).

amused,
Scofflaw

J C

Quote Robin
You're not in a majority, you're not even in a sizeable minority

Even Stephen Meyer, the chief propagandist from the Discovery [sic] Institute, could only claim the support of 450 "scientists" on the Horizon program the other night.

These are ID scientists – and NOT Creation Scientists.

And of course you should bear in mind Scofflaw’s words of wisdom “if you're right, then it doesn't matter how many scientists support your position.”!!!


Quote Robin
Another fine example of conspicuous Zoroastrian foresight is belief that a saviour was to be born to a virgin, and that this guy would save the dead by raising them back to life and a final judgment.

Indeed yes, the Zoroastrians are an interesting religion – the ‘wise men’ whose visit to Jesus is recorded in Mt 2:1-12 are thought to have been Zoroastrians.

This all indicates interlinked communication between various ancient peoples thereby allowing information to circulate among different widely dispersed groups.

J C

QUOTE Scofflaw
Dear oh dear. Even if we assumed (to be kind to you) that the smallest stalactite was say 1cm long, your "several million times larger" (using 3000000 to be kind, again) give a 75m stalactite. The longest known is 20m.

And the heated calcium hydroxide? What are you suggesting? Surely not metamorphosis, since that doesn't produce calcium hydroxide. Possibly dwarves with blowtorches?

I meant "several million times larger" in VOLUME terms - there are 1 million CCs in one Cubic Metre.

Calcium Hydroxide is Hydrated Lime - formed by the action of water on burned i.e. oxidised Limestone (by grass and forest fires burning the surface of Limestone outcrops, for example).

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

More good info on the background to this bit of religious culture is available here (scroll down a page or two to get to the relevant bit): http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Good Link, did not know of that one.

I think that as J.S. Spong, Episcopal (Bishop of Newark, NJ) summed it all up very well:

"In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

QUOTE Scofflaw
Dear oh dear. Even if we assumed (to be kind to you) that the smallest stalactite was say 1cm long, your "several million times larger" (using 3000000 to be kind, again) give a 75m stalactite. The longest known is 20m.

And the heated calcium hydroxide? What are you suggesting? Surely not metamorphosis, since that doesn't produce calcium hydroxide. Possibly dwarves with blowtorches?

I meant "several million times larger" in VOLUME terms - there are 1 million CCs in one Cubic Metre.

Well, yes, that's what I based my calculations on. If I'd done it on length, you'd be talking about 3km long stalactites. You're welcome to redo the calculations yourself (the formula for the volume of a cone is 1/3*pi*basal radius squared*length) until they come out right for you.

J C wrote:

Calcium Hydroxide is Hydrated Lime - formed by the action of water on burned i.e. oxidised Limestone (by grass and forest fires burning the surface of Limestone outcrops, for example).

And how, pray tell, does this reach the very deep caverns of the earth? Possibly the dwarves carry it down?

I'm sorry, but really, there aren't enough fires, they don't burn hot enough or long enough to affect more than a surface layer of limestone, limestone doesn't outcrop much at surface in the karstic regions that hold caves, stalactites are found in caves under arid and frozen regions as well as regions of bare rock that won't support fires (the Burren is a good example), and you're just talking junk, I'm afraid.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Quote Robin
Even Stephen Meyer, the chief propagandist from the Discovery [sic] Institute, could only claim the support of 450 "scientists" on the Horizon program the other night. [/B]

These are ID scientists – and NOT Creation Scientists.

OK, so 450 ID scientists. How many Creationist scientists should we be adding? Come on boys and girls, hard figures now!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Between 49 and 55 CE, he (Paul) recorded the first known reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, he writes:

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."

If he had been aware of the virgin birth, he would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written some 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus' birth.
bullet In about 57 CE, he wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes:

"I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph. The phrase "according to the flesh" implies a natural, normal conception and birth.

I do particularly like that section of the site linked by robindch.

Possibly the virgin birth story was added to impress the Gentiles (after the dust had settled on the Gentile/non-Gentile question), who might not have been as impressed with Jesus's lineage as potential Jewish converts.


cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> These are ID scientists – and NOT Creation Scientists.

I think you meant to say "these are ID scientists and not real scientists"! But even if you meant what you said (and I'm having a great deal of very amused difficulty believing you did!), I wonder if you could be so kind as to name some IDr's who are not creationists?

I'm only asking coz quite apart from the fact that they're obviously the same, that nice Judge in Dover had this to say:

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

And note that the Judge said even the reasoning powers available to a child could conclude this, which makes me think that (perhaps) creationists might be able to raise the level of their argument and find themselves likewise able to conclude that ID is creationism!

> This all indicates interlinked communication between various
> ancient peoples thereby allowing information to circulate

No sh*t, Tonto?!

So, now that you agree with me, how do you feel about the fact your holy "prophecies" were clearly nicked (without attribution) from an earlier religion? Come on, out with it, man!

Excelsior

Scofflaw wrote:

Possibly the virgin birth story was added to impress the Gentiles (after the dust had settled on the Gentile/non-Gentile question), who might not have been as impressed with Jesus's lineage as potential Jewish converts.

You sound like an ignorant Creation Scientist trying to reinterpret a scientific paper that is gobbledygook to suit your prejudices.

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

I think that as J.S. Spong, Episcopal (Bishop of Newark, NJ) summed it all up very well:

He did indeed - for an unbeliever and opponent of all that the gospel proclaims. It should be a salutary lesson for Christians who agree to treat the history of Genesis as metaphor. The logic of such hermenuetics explains away every other miraculous event.

But we all should be asking what credence should we give to a man who enters a Christian ministry yet holds to all that is contrary to Christian teaching. If you, Asiaprod, became a Buddhist monk and then proclaimed Islamic doctrine, would that not make you a rank hypocrite and your opinions beneath contempt? Or if I signed up with the Skeptics and proceeded to teach Christianity?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

He did indeed - for an unbeliever and opponent of all that the gospel proclaims. It should be a salutary lesson for Christians who agree to treat the history of Genesis as metaphor. The logic of such hermenuetics explains away every other miraculous event.

But we all should be asking what credence should we give to a man who enters a Christian ministry yet holds to all that is contrary to Christian teaching. If you, Asiaprod, became a Buddhist monk and then proclaimed Islamic doctrine, would that not make you a rank hypocrite and your opinions beneath contempt? Or if I signed up with the Skeptics and proceeded to teach Christianity?

Well, that explains how you can be sure that the majority of Christians agree with you, I suppose - if they don't, they're not Christians.

Pretty similar to the way you can be sure the facts support you - if they don't, they're not facts. And hey, I'm sure you know which bits of the Bible should be read which way too, huh?

As I said earlier, you appear to live in a world of your own creation.

coolly,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

JC, look just give me a single prediction of Creation Science.
Don't give one of the hypotheses, give me even a single predictive framework and one of its predictions.

Let me be double clear, don't give me a hypothesis.

Just one framework with one prediction. Thats all you have to do.

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

Asiaprod said:


He did indeed - for an unbeliever and opponent of all that the gospel proclaims. It should be a salutary lesson for Christians who agree to treat the history of Genesis as metaphor. The logic of such hermenuetics explains away every other miraculous event.

Wolfsbane, you are reading to much into what I said and expanding it to encompass all things. All I said was he summed up his position very nicely. Weither or not you or I agree is beside the point. I think he summed it up nicley

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Well, that explains how you can be sure that the majority of Christians agree with you, I suppose - if they don't, they're not Christians.

Agree with me? What about agree with the historic creeds, confessions and articles of faith of any of the Orthodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic churches? Spong and his liberal friends are not Christians in any historic sense of the word.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

To continue making this claim is deliberately misleading, because you simply cannot produce these 'thousands of scientists', despite the highly politicised nature of your position. As you have failed to support this contention (except by 'voting the graveyard'), then continuing to make it will eventually get you labelled as a liar.

I can't personally introduce you to more than 5 such scientists: but I'm not moving in scientific fields, yet I have personal contact (outside of creationist interests) with 5 Creationist scientists! I've checked the lists such as http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_sci_faq and http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp they are not listed there. So I find it totally plausible that there are multiples of the listed scientists.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

bluewolf said:

Yes, it is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. No, it was not based on a mistranslation. The Jews make a case that in the original prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel., virgin means a young woman of marriageable age, not necessarily a virgin. However, there is no case where the Hebrew word is used of a woman of whom it can be said she was not a virgin. But most important for establishing the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is the actual record of the NT:
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. [emphasis mine]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

You sound like an ignorant Creation Scientist trying to reinterpret a scientific paper that is gobbledygook to suit your prejudices.

...and I'm not entirely certain how to take that...

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:


I can't personally introduce you to more than 5 such scientists: but I'm not moving in scientific fields, yet I have personal contact (outside of creationist interests) with 5 Creationist scientists! I've checked the lists such as http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_sci_faq and http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp they are not listed there. So I find it totally plausible that there are multiples of the listed scientists.

Wolfsbane, even assuming 'multiples of the listed scientists', and overlooking the fact that some of them have qualifications like 'Physical Education', you're still in the hundreds.

I repeat - there is no creation/evolution debate within science, there are only a relative handful of scientists who support it, and most of those do not deal directly with evolution, and for you to keep suggesting that there is a large minority of creationists within science is not true. Continue to insist, and it becomes difficult not to conclude you're actually lying about it.

In any case, as I've said before, if you're right about Creation, it doesn't matter how many are with you, or how many are against you. I argue this point because it's one of the few you can't avoid or gloss over, and it's important to your claim that there is a 'scientific debate' about creationism. There is not, any more than the fact that a handful of anti-Treatyites still don't accept the legitimacy of Dail Eireann mean that Ireland is in a state of Civil War. The war is over.

In addition, doesn't it kind of give the lie to your claims of anti-creationist witch-hunting within science that these 'creation scientists' have managed to qualify and get jobs within science?


coolly,
Scofflaw

J C

Quote Scofflaw
Oh please! This one has been debunked more times than Bigfoot.

The real ‘Yeti in the living room’ is Evolution.

Please really TRY ‘debunking’ my posting this time!!!


Quote Scofflaw
In any case, you appear to be comparing a time-dependent probability to an electron, for reasons entirely obscure (possibly the fact that they're both big numbers?).

I was illustrating the invalidity of the oft – repeated fallacy by Evolutionists that even if the odds of spontaneously generating life are infinitesimally small, the Universe and time are so enormous that it is a certainty.

My example employed EVERY electron in the Universe and more time than any evolutionist has EVER ‘shook a stick at’ – and still the undirected production of the amino acid SEQUENCE for a specific 100 chain protein couldn’t be guaranteed.

My illustration clearly demonstrated how IMPOSSIBLY high the odds AGAINST the Macro evolution of the SEQUENCE for even one small protein are – as well as the critical importance of applied intelligence

Please note that the 10^^130 figure is the odds against getting ONLY the SEQUENCE right – and it takes no account of the even more formidable requirements to actually PRODUCE the protein, then combine the proteins with lipids, sugars, etc into anything even remotely approaching a living cell.

Also please note that ANY desired SEQUENCE could be specified by a 10 year old in 20 minutes – such is the importance of APPLIED INTELLIGENCE.


And now to get back to ‘Fortress Impossible’.

Please explain how a 10 chain amino acid peptide (assuming that one could be spontaneously generated in the first place) could INCREMENTALLY increase to a 100 chain useful protein WHILE MAINTAINING A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE at each small step on the way.

Please bear in mind that the ‘useless combinational space’ between this molecule and any other useful molecule is so vast that it would defeat the abilities of every atom in the entire Universe to make enough combinations to ‘cross’ it. Also please bear in mind that the incremental undirected ADDITION of amino acids to critical sequences in protein chains are observed to destroy the utility of the protein completely. And finally, please explain the following (that I’ve asked you on post (# 713 page 36):-

In order for NS to select ‘improvements’ these must be expressed phenotypically – i.e. 10 amino acids giving 10% functionality, 11 giving 11%, 12 giving 12%, etc. IF this were the case NS MIGHT be able to progress ‘upwards and onwards’ to the SPECIFIC 100 amino acid chain required for full functionality – but this is NOT the case.

The ‘gradual slope’ of ‘Mount Improbable’ DOESN’T EXIST – and therefore ‘Mount Improbable’ is actually ‘Fortress Impossible’!!!

The probability of something that has already happened is 1, because it's already happened.
If you get a deck of cards, pick one out of it and lay it face down and note the suit and type, then do likewise with every other card in the deck, and note the sequence. Then try to calculate the probability of having picked that sequence. It's probably going to be lowish, and yet you just picked it...

J C

Quote Excelsior
You sound like an ignorant Creation Scientist trying to reinterpret a scientific paper that is gobbledygook to suit your prejudices

Indeed, Creation Scientists DO come across some gobbledygook in evolutionary lore.

Could I ask Theistic Evolutionists for their views on the following quote from J.S. Spong, Episcopal (Bishop of Newark, NJ) (as originally posted by Asiaprod) ?
"In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."

Indeed could I ask what actually DOES stand in the way of further reinterpretation once you decide to treat historical accounts written in literal or semi-literal style such as the Genesis account of Direct Divine Creation as allegory?

This is where the re-interpretation of The Established Word of God ultimately runs the risk of heading and the above quote from Bishop Spong proves that the avant-garde of ‘liberal Christianity’ are well on their way there!!!

J C

J C wrote:

Indeed what actually DOES stand in the way of this reinterpretation once you decide to treat historical accounts written in literal or semi-literal style such as the Genesis account of Direct Divine Creation as allegory?

This is where the re-interpretation of The Established Word of God ultimately runs the risk of heading and the above quote from Bishop Spong proves that the avant-garde of so-called ‘liberal Christianity’ are well on their way there!!!

Does it matter that much to you? Why not just believe what you want and accept it's a matter of faith?
And then we can all enjoy a nice cup of tea.

J C

bluewolf wrote:

The probability of something that has already happened is 1, because it's already happened.
If you get a deck of cards, pick one out of it and lay it face down and note the suit and type, then do likewise with every other card in the deck, and note the sequence. Then try to calculate the probability of having picked that sequence. It's probably going to be lowish, and yet you just picked it...

The odds that we are dealing with in the TIGHTLY SPECIFIED living systems that we observe are analagous to dealing millions of Poker Hands one after the other and getting 'Royal Flushes' every time!!

J C

J C wrote:

The odds that we are dealing with in the TIGHTLY SPECIFIED living systems that we observe are analagous to dealing millions of Poker Hands one after the other and getting 'Royal Flushes' every time!!

If it happens it happens

Anyway I think we should all worry about how things are than as they were