Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
....and you should indeed be very worried about having me on ignore .... and therefore missing out on all of the gems of wisdom that this thread throws up from time to time!!!!:eek::DI am getting a bit worried. I have JC on ignore, and have done for quite a while now. Will someone let me know when he answers Atomic's questions so I can take him off ignore to read them. Actually, if someone could just quote them for me that would be better.
MrP
.....and you know that you can take me off ignore anytime you want to !!!
....go on....go on.. go on...........GO ON......you can do it!!!:D:eek:0 -
.....the slowdown is 0.002 seconds per day .... which adds up to roughly one second every 1.4 years ... and that is why we had the addition of one second on Wednesday night.
I accept that it varies, but nonetheless it shows how (using the uniformitarian approach so beloved of Evolutionists) billions of years would magnify even something as miniscule as a 0.002 second tidal breaking to the point where the Earth would be spinning at impossible speeds in the distant past!!!
I don't know where you are getting those figures but they are wrong. it's around 0.0015 seconds per day per century. Please show me reference to these figures? Lets see what NASA thinks:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2004/20050318.htm
Or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
The main reason for the leap second is that it does not rotate exactly once every 24 hours or 86,400 seconds. The rotation takes 86,400.002 seconds so that each day this little difference builds up between the atomic clock and the earth's rotation. In 1820 the rotation took 86,400 seconds which is a difference of 2 milliseconds in 200 years. Back 4.5 billion years ago this would have meant that the earth had a 6.5 hours per day/night cycle.
Is that the only "evidence" you have against the earth being billions of years old?0 -
-
I don't know where you are getting those figures but they are wrong. it's around 0.0015 seconds per day per century. Please show me reference to these figures? Lets see what NASA thinks:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2004/20050318.htm
Or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
The main reason for the leap second is that it does not rotate exactly once every 24 hours or 86,400 seconds. The rotation takes 86,400.002 seconds so that each day this little difference builds up between the atomic clock and the earth's rotation.
lol, I guess this is where he got his .002 seconds per day thing. Wow, if that's the most complex his thought process gets, I'm not surprised he believes the nonsense he posts.
MrPudding: You can do what I do and just occasionally click the 'View Post' button on the top right to see if he addresses the questions.
J C: How about you answer AtomicHorror's questions now? He has explained quite clearly why you have failed to do so thus far.0 -
....and the point that I'm making is that although snowflake shape is extremely COMPLEX ... it ISN'T functional ... and therefore specificity isn't required from snowflakes.
Yes but I put demands of specificity into the analogy. A specified (by us) snowflake with a specified (by us) structure. I suspect that as long as we don't ask for an impossible structure, we need only look at enough snowflakes to find the one we want.On the other hand biomolecules ARE functional .. and they are therefore BOTH very complex AND highly specific ... and it is their specificity that mathematically rules out their formation by non-intelligently guided processes ...and not their complexity!!!!:pac::):D
But their specificity is not relevant to abiogenesis. The molecule must be self-replicating and nothing more. Specificity is determined by natural selection....I agree that proteins could NEVER be formed by Abiogenesis .... and therefore Abiogenesis could NEVER occur!!!
Deliberate attempts to mislead are lies JC. I have already stated that protein formation is not considered to be a likely part of abiogenesis. What need has a self-replicating RNA molecule of amino acids? None at all, until much much later......the slowdown is 0.002 seconds per day ....
No, you've made a very simple mistake there. You're getting confused between amount of change and rate of change and you've gotten mixed up in in your units.
The amount by which we slow down is measured in seconds per day, or in seconds per some other block of time. That tells us nothing of how quickly that slowdown is occurring. According to what I've read, the rate of slowdown is 0.002 sec/day every 180-odd years. You can express it all kinds of ways but the important thing is that you have to have three units there. It's a rate of change. Look, if you're putting the breaks on in your car, you can't measure the deceleration in km/h. You have to measure it in km/h/sec or some other unit of time. Three units.
Deicida's figure sounds a lot more convenient, being in terms of sec/day/century, though both our figures seem to be in the same ballpark.which adds up to roughly one second every 1.4 years ... and that is why we had the addition of one second on Wednesday night.
It's a bit more complicated than that and I'd really suggest you try doing some research for once.I accept that it varies, but nonetheless it shows how (using the uniformitarian approach so beloved of Evolutionists) billions of years would magnify even something as miniscule as a 0.002 second tidal breaking to the point where the Earth would be spinning at impossible speeds in the distant past!!!
No, it just shows that your grasp of maths is sub secondary school. Last I checked, they covered rates of change in calculus. Leaving cert level, at the most. I thought you had a science degree? Maths is required for first year in those too.....I accept that a uniformitarian approach is invalid ... but the uniformitarian approach is equally invalid when it comes to interpreting the geological record and radiometric 'dating'!!!!:D:)
And as we all know, if you can find a 1% error in any form of radiometric dating that must mean the world is exactly as old as demanded by your favourite creation myth.0 -
Advertisement
-
....but the specificity in living systems ISN'T determined by 'us'....it is REQUIRED by the living systems themselves ... and only direction by intelligence could produce such specificity without producing waste piles the size of the known universe in order to produce just one simple functional protein.AtomicHorror wrote: »Yes but I put demands of specificity into the analogy. A specified (by us) snowflake with a specified (by us) structure. I suspect that as long as we don't ask for an impossible structure, we need only look at enough snowflakes to find the one we want.
....the molecule must be functional...and that is where NS would be confounded and overwhelmed by the mega billions of possible non-functional amino acid permutations out there, as it tried to 'search out' the very few specific AA sequences for a specific functional protein ...AtomicHorror wrote: »But their specificity is not relevant to abiogenesis. The molecule must be self-replicating and nothing more. Specificity is determined by natural selection.
......non-intelligently directed processes would be akin to somebody trying to randomly assemble a Boeing 747 by randomly choosing from billions of possible parts from a giant warehouse ... you would hardly succeed in matching even one nut and a bolt using such a process!!!
....and a putative self replicating molecule could replicate for an effective eternity of time without ever producing a functional simple protein ... and therefore Abiogenesis is impossible ... even if the known Universe was entirely made up of your supposed self-replicating molecules...which it obviously isn't!!!!!:DAtomicHorror wrote: »I have already stated that protein formation is not considered to be a likely part of abiogenesis. What need has a self-replicating RNA molecule of amino acids? None at all, until much much later.
.....I have rechecked my figures and you are correct that the rate of decline is 0.0017 sec/day per century ... sincere appologies for my error!!!:oAtomicHorror wrote: »No, you've made a very simple mistake there. You're getting confused between amount of change and rate of change and you've gotten mixed up in in your units.
The amount by which we slow down is measured in seconds per day, or in seconds per some other block of time. That tells us nothing of how quickly that slowdown is occurring. According to what I've read, the rate of slowdown is 0.002 sec/day every 180-odd years. You can express it all kinds of ways but the important thing is that you have to have three units there. It's a rate of change. Look, if you're putting the breaks on in your car, you can't measure the deceleration in km/h. You have to measure it in km/h/sec or some other unit of time. Three units.0 -
JC you seem to think abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing. If something even more impossible happened like supernatural divine intervention at the begining of life then evolution would still be the best explanation for how that life developed and the evidence would still stand.0
-
I notice that we are again arguing over abiogenesis when the question asked of you was why the emergence of the current variety in life is impossible by naturalistic means. We ask you for a mathematical refutation of evolution and once again you divert the conversation towards abiogenesis. And even then your response is just to build a straw man of that process. Desperate?....but the specificity in living systems ISN'T determined by 'us'....it is REQUIRED by the living systems themselves ... and only direction by intelligence could produce such specificity without producing waste piles the size of the known universe to produce even one simple functional protein.
It was an analogy J C. You know those? By your definition of impossible, pretty much all complex chemical reactions, specified or not, become improbable. Because you're ignoring the laws of physics. That was my point.....the molecule must be functional...and that is where NS would be confounded and overwhelmed by the mega billions of non-functional amino acid permutations as it tried to 'search out' the very few specific AA sequences for a specific functional protein ...
It doesn't have to "search out" anything. Natural selection is not active. The sequences which cannot survive, do not survive. Those that can, do. The materials from the dead sequences are used by the living ones. The very first self-replicating sequences would not have needed to be 100 bases long, they might have been 10 bases long. We can certainly generate a great number of sequences with just 10 nucleotides, but certainly not an impractical number.non-intelligently directed processes would be akin to somebody trying to randomly assemble a Boeing 747 by randomly choosing from billions of possible parts from a giant warehouse ... you would hardly succeed in matching a nut and a bolt using such a process!!!
There are no natural forces which compel a nut to twist into a bolt. Nucleotides on the other hand will both bind end to end and will bind by complementarity according to natural physical laws. Your analogy is useless.....and a putative self replicating molecule could replicate for an effective eternity of time without ever producing a simple protein ...
Or just a couple of billion years, whereupon any sequence that had co-localised in a lipid vacuole with some sort of ribosome (also made of RNA) would have a massive advantage. It'll out-survive the free-floating sequences. It's all very simple to imagine, quite worrying that you have such trouble.and therefore Abiogenesis is impossible ... even if the known Universe was entirely made up of your supposed self-replicating molecules!!!!!:D
Therefore? All you've effectively said is that an aspect of abiogenesis is impossible without backing it up and then said "therefore abiogenesis is impossible"......I have rechecked my figures and you are correct that the rate of decline is 0.0017 sec/day per century ... sincere appologies for my error!!!:o
Never thought I'd see the day.
So, when do we get back to talking about evolution?0 -
JC you seem to think abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing. If something even more impossible happened like supernatural divine intervention at the begining of life then evolution would still be the best explanation for how that life developed and the evidence would still stand.
The perception that abiogenesis and evolution are the one theory is a remarkably common misconception, but it's not one that J C holds. He has been told more times than I could count what the difference is. He uses it as a straw man for the theory of evolution. He knows abiogenesis isn't theory, so it's easier to attack. It's an extremely dishonest tactic that he justifies by some extremely creative morals.0 -
...abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing....abiogenesis is impossible ... while evolution, in the sense of genetic drift within populations is a reality ... and evolution in the sense of pondslime spontaneously lifting itself up by its own bootstraps to become Man is also IMPOSSIBLE!!!!JC you seem to think abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing. If something even more impossible happened like supernatural divine intervention at the begining of life then evolution would still be the best explanation for how that life developed and the evidence would still stand.
:pac::):D0 -
Advertisement
-
....the emergence of the current variety in life (by Evolution) by naturalistic means, is just as impossible .... as the first emergence of life (by Abiogenesis) by naturalistic means.AtomicHorror wrote: »I notice that we are again arguing over abiogenesis when the question asked of you was why the emergence of the current variety in life is impossible by naturalistic means. We ask you for a mathematical refutation of evolution and once again you divert the conversation towards abiogenesis.
In other words, it is just as mathematically impossible for non-intelligently directed processes to produce the new information to produce variety in life as it is to produce the life in the first place .... both processes require NEW functional information .... and new functional information can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence!!!
...you are correct that NS is not active ... and it can only select from the product of whatever sequences are presented to it .... the point that you are missing is that any non-intelligently directed system will invariably present NS with USELESS sequences with NO functionality such is the overwhelming ratio of useless non-functional AA sequences (much greater than the number of electrons in the Universe) in comparison with the very limited number of useful functional AA sequences ... sometimes a little as ONE exact sequence for a particular functional protein!!!!:DAtomicHorror wrote: »It doesn't have to "search out" anything. Natural selection is not active. The sequences which cannot survive, do not survive. Those that can, do. The materials from the dead sequences are used by the living ones. The very first self-replicating sequences would not have needed to be 100 bases long, they might have been 10 bases long. We can certainly generate a great number of sequences with just 10 nucleotides, but certainly not an impractical number.
Faced with these odds it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE for enough sequences to be produced by non-intelligently directed processes in order to have any statistical chance of 'hitting on' a functional sequence that NS could select!!!!
...the point that I was making is that even something relatively simple like a nut and a bolt has an infinity of possible diameters and thread thicknesses and rises ... and therefore non-intelligently directed processes could NEVER produce a matching nut and bolt...consider how much more impossible it is to produce a functioning match between the array of proteins that are required, for example, to produce an essential biochemical cascade. The difficulty of getting a match between a nut and a bolt would pale into insignificance when compared to the difficulties of producing the EXACT protein sequences required at EVERY point along such a biochemical cascade!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »There are no natural forces which compel a nut to twist into a bolt. Nucleotides on the other hand will both bind end to end and will bind by complementarity according to natural physical laws. Your analogy is useless.
....the appliance of time (even billions of years of time) DOESN'T make something which is dead spontaneously spring into life!!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »Or just a couple of billion years, whereupon any sequence that had co-localised in a lipid vacuole with some sort of ribosome (also made of RNA) would have a massive advantage. It'll out-survive the free-floating sequences. It's all very simple to imagine, quite worrying that you have such trouble.
..could I remind you that this thread is called the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy ..... so Creation and its secular equivalent of Abiogenesis is VERY MUCH on topic on this thread....and as I have already said 'Pondslime to Man Evolution' has the exact same difficulties that Abiogenesis has .... the job of constructing a Man from pondslime using non-intelligently directed processes is just as difficult (and impossible) as constructing the Pondslime from elemental chemicals!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »So, when do we get back to talking about evolution?
...so the Abiogenesis of Man is just as big a problem for natural processes as is the Abiogenesis of Pondslime... and they are BOTH just as IMPOSSIBLE as each other!!!:D:)
...and here is some more 'brain expanding' ideas for Evolutionists from the great Phillip Johnson (b. 1940) Professor of Law at Berkeley
"Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature. " Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990
"Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990
"The problem with scientific naturalism as a worldview is that it takes a sound methodological premise of natural science and transforms it into a dogmatic statement about the nature of the universe. Science is committed by definition to empiricism, by which I mean that scientists seek to find truth by observation, experiment, and calculation rather than by studying sacred books or achieving mystical states of mind. It may well be, however, that there are certain questions -- important questions, ones to which we desperately want to know the answers -- that cannot be answered by the methods available to our science. These may include not only broad philosophical issues such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become accustomed to think of as empirical, such as how life first began or how complex biological systems were put together. " Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 19900 -
-
...all we can scientifically establish at present is that Intgelligence WAS applied to produce life ... and we do not known scientifically who applied this Intelligence...Flamed Diving wrote: »Which came from where exactly?
....but I personally know who did it!!!!
...and His name is Jesus Christ!!!!:)
...and He wants to Save YOU too!!!!:)0 -
...all we can scientifically establish at present is that Intgelligence WAS applied to produce life ... and we do not known scientifically who applied this Intelligence...
So it needn't have been a god/s?
[QUOTE=J C;58444990....but I personally know who did it!!!!
...and His name is Jesus Christ!!!!:)
...and He wants to Save YOU too!!!!:)[/QUOTE]
I don't accept bronze-age texts as evidence.0 -
Apologies, it's hard to jump in to a 14000 post thread. I just thought from posts like this:.....so I'm sorry guys .... the one second added to all your watches last night means that you NOW have less than 50 million years from the formation of the Earth in which to do all the feverish 'Evolving' that you all continue to dream about!!!:eek::D
and from your sig that you didn't agree with evolution at all.
I don't know much about abiogenesis but in your calculation you talk about a protein chain of 100 amino acids having a chance of 10^130. The earliest signs of life were simpler than this and have a much higher probability of being formed. Your calculation also only sounds impossible if the process was happening sequentially by one protein at a time when there was billions of simultaneous molecules in the ocean or on the shoreline interacting.
If the probability of flipping a coin and getting four heads in a row is (1/2)^4, what's the probability of one person getting four heads in a row if the population of China flipped a coin?0 -
...we cannot definitively (i.e. scientifically) say that 'it' was a God ... but we can scientifically conclude that whatever 'it' was ... it had inordinate levels of intelligence and creative powers!!!:DFlamed Diving wrote: »So it needn't have been a god/s?
.....so the 'Intelligence' that produced life was possessed of God-like powers of omniscience and omnipotence!!!!
....anyway why is it so important to you to deny that it was a God(s)???
....WHY do you fear God that much ??.... I can assure you that He loves YOU and wants to Save YOU
....now you really do have a problem .... because YOU can ONLY be Saved by FAITH ... in the 'Bronze Age Text' that you so inelegantly call the Bible!!!!Flamed Diving wrote: »I don't accept bronze-age texts as evidence.
....i.e. faith in at least that part of the Bible, which tells you that you must believe on Jesus Christ to Save you!!!:)0 -
...I used be a 'macro-evolutionist' ... and now I'm just a 'micro-evolutionist'!!!Apologies, it's hard to jump in to a 14000 post thread. I just thought from posts like this:
and from your sig that you didn't agree with evolution at all.
....with emphasis on the 'micro' bit!!!:eek::D
...the odds against getting a functional protein are 10^130 for a 100 chain molecule which is a number so big that it defies description....its analogous to 'flipping' the entire population of China once and expecting them to land down in a perfect sequence of their dates of birth !!!!!!:DI don't know much about abiogenesis but in your calculation you talk about a protein chain of 100 amino acids having a chance of 10^130. The earliest signs of life were simpler than this and have a much higher probability of being formed. Your calculation also only sounds impossible if the process was happening sequentially by one protein at a time when there was billions of simultaneous molecules in the ocean or on the shoreline interacting.
If the probability of getting tails from flipping a coin is 1/2, what's the probability of one person getting tails if the population of China flipped a coin?0 -
...we cannot definitively (i.e. scientifically) say that 'it' was a God ... but we can scientifically conclude that whatever 'it' was ... it had inordinate levels of intelligence and creative powers!!!:D
.....so the 'Intelligence' that produced life was possessed of God-like powers of omniscience and omnipotence!!!!
Does that mean 'it' is/was irreducibly complex?...the odds against getting a functional protein are 10^130 for a 100 chain molecule which is a number so big that it defies description....its analogous to 'flipping' the entire population of China once and expecting them to land down in a perfect sequence of their dates of birth !!!!!!:D
Great! Where'd you get that figure from?0 -
....probably....but words like 'irreducibly' and 'complex' don't even begin to describe an infinite intelligence!!:)The Mad Hatter wrote: »Does that mean 'it' is/was irreducibly complex?
...it certainly is closer to 10^130 than the odds of flipping a coin is!!!!!:)The Mad Hatter wrote: »Great! Where'd you get that figure from?0 -
That figure may only apply to more complex proteins. The earlier forms would have a much more likely probability especially if the process is being repeated billions of times simultaneously over around 2 billion years.0
-
Advertisement
-
....probably....but words like 'irreducibly' and 'complex' don't even begin to describe an infinite intelligence!!:)
And do you think that this 'infinite intelligence' spontaneously appeared? You must admit that's a tad less likely than a simple protein doing the same.
I think we have a question twelve.
Edit: question 13; I do apologise. How about you start by answering just one of them?...it certainly is closer to 10^130 than the odds of flipping a coin is!!!!!:)
No, no, no. I asked 'where did you get that figure from?' Not 'tell me that figure again'.0 -
...we cannot definitively (i.e. scientifically) say that 'it' was a God ... but we can scientifically conclude that whatever 'it' was ... it had inordinate levels of intelligence and creative powers!!!:D
Possibly......so the 'Intelligence' that produced life was possessed of God-like powers of omniscience and omnipotence!!!!
Thats a bit too far.....anyway why is it so important to you to deny that it was a God(s)???
Because there is no evidence of this occuring, and because I believe that people like you only serve to erode elements of society that I hold dear, such as free speech, secularism and scientific progress.....WHY do you fear God that much ??.... I can assure you that He loves YOU and wants to Save YOU
If he did exist, and was as powerful as you describe, he could simply save us all. Instead he sits back and does nothing. I wonder why that is.......now you really do have a problem .... because YOU can ONLY be Saved by FAITH ... in the 'Bronze Age Text' that you so inelegantly call the Bible!!!!
It is an accurate description. A collection of stories, written by bronze-age tribes.....i.e. faith in at least that part of the Bible, which tells you that you must believe on Jesus Christ to Save you!!!:)
As I said, he has the power to save us all, but just sits back and does nothing. A lot of entities do nothing, such as the tooth fairy, FSM, etc. I wonder why...0 -
....the emergence of the current variety in life (by Evolution) by naturalistic means, is just as impossible .... as the first emergence of life (by Abiogenesis) by naturalistic means.
Yet you fail to provide evidence for either assertion. Your 10^130 spiel is meaningless if you can't tell use how you got that figure.In other words, it is just as mathematically impossible for non-intelligently directed processes to produce the new information to produce variety in life as it is to produce the life in the first place .... both processes require NEW functional information .... and new functional information can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence!!!
Nonsense. I can generate functional information from randomly arranging Scrabble tiles. That's without replication or selection....you are correct that NS is not active ... and it can only select from the product of whatever sequences are presented to it .... the point that you are missing is that any non-intelligently directed system will invariably present NS with USELESS sequences with NO functionality
Why? Function is contextual. Inititally, the only function will be persistence.
Imagine that 3-nucleotide sequences form from a broth of random nucleotides. Imagine that A-G bonds are more stable than others. The 3-base sequences can also replicate at a low rate as well as form by polymerisation.
AAA
TAG
GAG
AGA
GGA
TGT
CGA
... and so on.
Stability is a function here. Natural selection will act to conserve the stable. After some time, there will tend to be more sequences with A-G bonds in the mixture than sequences with other bonds. AGA and GAG will be the most common. This is the first step. Selection for stability. And since they can only replicate at the low rate allowed by the absence of cellular machinery, stability will be very important, as will replication efficiency.such is the overwhelming ratio of useless non-functional AA sequences (much greater than the number of electrons in the Universe) in comparison with the very limited number of useful functional AA sequences ... sometimes a little as ONE exact sequence for a particular functional protein!!!!:D
But the first replicators don't need to make protein. They just need to be stable. They just need to be able to replicate faster than other ones. Those are simple functions. The "overwhelming ratio" of useless and non-functional sequences are indeed "useless" from our perspective, but all they need do is continue to exist and replicate. In terms of replication efficiency and stability, some will have function, whether you'd like to call it that or not. The ones that have neither will be out-competed in time.Faced with these odds it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE for enough sequences to be produced by non-intelligently directed processes in order to have any statistical chance of 'hitting on' a functional sequence that NS could select!!!!
Like what, haemoglobin? What good would such a sequence, protein or nucleic acid, be in the early stages? None. The very sequences you consider "functional" would be useless at the replicator stage....the point that I was making is that even something relatively simple like a nut and a bolt has an infinity of possible diameters and thread thicknesses and rises ... and therefore non-intelligently directed processes could NEVER produce a matching nut and bolt...
Unlike nucleic acids, which all fit together perfectly. Or amino acids, which do the same but without complementarity. The analogy is usleess.consider how much more impossible it is to produce a functioning match between the array of proteins that are required, for example, to produce an essential biochemical cascade. The difficulty of getting a match between a nut and a bolt would pale into insignificance when compared to the difficulties of producing the EXACT protein sequences required at EVERY point along such a biochemical cascade!!!
What good is a biochemical cascade when you don't even have a cell membrane? That's not "function" at the abiogenesis stage. That sorta function wouldn't survive, wouldn't be selected positively for, even if it did appear.....the appliance of time (even billions of years of time) DOESN'T make something which is dead spontaneously spring into life!!!!!
The dead matter of my meals from last week are now living parts of my body. They became as such with no intelligent intervention, beyond me chewing...could I remind you that this thread is called the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy ..... so Creation and its secular equivalent of Abiogenesis is VERY MUCH on topic on this thread....and as I have already said 'Pondslime to Man Evolution' has the exact same difficulties that Abiogenesis has .... the job of constructing a Man from pondslime using non-intelligently directed processes is just as difficult (and impossible) as constructing the Pondslime from elemental chemicals!!!!
Well then, if you must attack abiogenesis, please explain why some specific abiogenesis hypotheses cannot work. The version of abiogenesis you present is not claimed to be correct by any biologist that I am aware of. So your falsification of it is as worthless as me providing evidence that Noah didn't build a 30 foot robot dinosaur. You never claimed he did, so why would I make such an attack? We do not claim that amino acids are relevant to abiogenesis.0 -
J C and co. The questions you keep avoiding. Or at least not answering. Questions 9 through 13 have not been addressed at this time.
1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
13. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?0 -
-
....it doesn't matter that there might have been simpler molecules 'earlier on'....what the maths is showing is that it is impossible to produce a specific functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes, even if it is repeated billions of times simultaneously over 2 billion years ...That figure may only apply to more complex proteins. The earlier forms would have a much more likely probability especially if the process is being repeated billions of times simultaneously over around 2 billion years.
...in fact, the odds against producing a specific protein are such that even if every one of the 10^80 electrons in the known Universe produced a 100 AA sequence a million times every second for 5,000 million years, the number of possible attempts would only be 3.42X10^108...which is nowhere near the 10^130 non-functional permutations for a specific functional 100 AA protein!!!!:D0 -
-
....it has indeed been scientifically established....the fact that various Atheists and their buddies are in denial about it, doesn't alter the fact that it has been scientifically established that Intelligence WAS applied in the production of life !!!:DOriginally Posted by J C
...all we can scientifically establish at present is that Intgelligence WAS applied to produce life ...
2Scoops
What what what? Where has this been scientifically established?
:pac:0 -
....you are correct that we BOTH have faith-backed starting points...The Mad Hatter wrote: »And do you think that this 'infinite intelligence' spontaneously appeared? You must admit that's a tad less likely than a simple protein doing the same.
I believe that we were created by an omnipotent Intelligence, who has always existed and who is transcendant ... and therefore exists both within and outside the current dimensions in which we live.
You believe that the blind laws of physics and chemistry somehow 'conspired' to produce life.
My belief is backed up by the observed complexity and specificity of living systems...which mathematically rules out the production of biomolecules by non-intelligently directed processes ... while your belief is akin to somebody believing in the spontaneous production of life by a chemical 'Spaghetti Monster' ... or some other mythical 'force' that nobody has ever observed, like the 'Gaia force'!!!!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
...I believe in everybodys right to exercise their God-given free will .... which obviously includes their God-given right to free speech!!!Flamed Diving wrote: »Because there is no evidence of this occuring, and because I believe that people like you only serve to erode elements of society that I hold dear, such as free speech, secularism and scientific progress.
...if God has seen fit to give you free will, WHY would I, as a Christian, try to stop you exercising your God-given rights ... even if I totally disagree with you???
The suppression of free speech is NOT a God-ordained activity.
As Christians we have an obligation to point out errors in somebodys speech ... but we do not have any right. nor would we wish to deny anybody the right to be wrong!!!!:D
....He doesn't sit back and do nothing ... He has provided us with the means to be Saved ... by believing on Him ... but He will not force anybody to be Saved ... we have the free will to choose to be Saved ... or not to do so, as we see fit!!!:DFlamed Diving wrote: »If he did exist, and was as powerful as you describe, he could simply save us all. Instead he sits back and does nothing. I wonder why that is...
You seem to want God to forcibly Save you ... even if you hate Him ... WHY would you think that a loving and a just God would do such a thing???
...the tooth fairy and abiogenesis are both myths made up to impress children!!!!Flamed Diving wrote: »As I said, he has the power to save us all, but just sits back and does nothing. A lot of entities do nothing, such as the tooth fairy, FSM, etc. I wonder why...
....however, a lot of very powerful forces are invisible ... but they are very real nontheless.
God is a very real entity ... and everyone knows this in their hearts already .... and it will be confirmed when they die!!!:D0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement