The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

kiffer · 07-10-2009 11:59pm

J C wrote: »

...thanks Kieffer!!!

...but I'm in the Euro-zone!!!!:D:)

Hmm...
It's Kiffer. That's at least the second time you've made that mistake... You should take more care. Once again it seems your reading comprehension has let you down... I'm glad to see you don't consider your contributions to this thread sterling work...

J C · 08-10-2009 12:01am

Malty_T wrote: »

Brilliant Video:)

...the music was great allright ... all the rest was wishful thinking!!!!:eek::)

NONE of the putative fat globules, etc in the video are observed in nature today ... but why spoil a good story with scientifcally verified FACTS and inconvenient truths??!!:D

Interestingly the author accepted the validity of the Creation Science arguments ... but then 'hand waved' their implications away by saying that so-called 'early' molecules/cells weren't nearly as complicated as today's living cells ... without offering any real explanation for how the CSI in todays living organisms arose!!!

...the bottom line is that the origin of the Complex Specified Information observed in living organisms CANNOT be scientifically explained by any current hypothesis, that I am aware of, other than an Intelligent Design hypothesis!!!:D

J C · 08-10-2009 12:07am

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...but I'm in the Euro-zone!!!!

kiffer
I'm glad to see you don't consider your contributions to this thread sterling work...

... why do you not accept that I gave a Euro performance???... are you a Euro-skeptic????:D:)

Turtwig · 08-10-2009 12:17am

J C wrote: »

Interestingly the author accepted the validity of the Creation Science arguments ... but then 'hand waved' their implications away by saying that so-called 'early' molecules/cells weren't nerely as complicated as today's living cells!!!

Em, what evidence do you have that they WERE as complicated as today's living cells?

J C · 08-10-2009 12:29am

Malty_T wrote: »

Em, what evidence do you have that they WERE as complicated as today's living cells?

...because we have no evidence that these putative structures EVER existed ... and the so-called first living cell fossils appear fully formed with similar levels of apparent complexity to current living organisms ...and the origin of the Complex Specified Information observed in living organisms today CANNOT be scientifically explained by any hypothesis, that I am aware of, other than an Intelligent Design hypothesis!!!

Turtwig · 08-10-2009 12:39am

J C wrote: »

...because we have no evidence that these putative structures EVER existed ... and the origin of the Complex Specified Information observed in living organisms CANNOT be scientifically explained by any hypothesis other than an Intelligent Design hypothesis!!!

Rephrase:

What Evidence does ID theory have that claims that life MUST have began as complex systems?

J C · 08-10-2009 8:17am

Malty_T wrote: »

What Evidence does ID theory have that claims that life MUST have started as complex systems?

...the irreducible Specified Complexity observed in living organisms MUST have begun as complex systems equivalent to or higher than their current levels of CSI ... unless there were repeated inputs of intelligent activity ... which is a possiblity that Science cannot rule out at this stage!!!:D:eek:

Speaking as a Bible-Believing Christian, I believe that the entire intelligent input occurred at one point in time ... but as a Creation Scientist I cannot rule out the possibility that there was repeated intelligent inputs ... and there is active research currently underway to establish the veracity or otherwise of this possibility!!!!

..I have already told you that Creation Scientists have open minds on issues that they haven't scientifically confirmed ... unlike most Evolutionists, who only question the detail ... but not the overall Hypothesis of Spontaneous Evolution!!!!:):D

...another reason why Creation Science is 'light years' ahead of the Evolutionist equivalent!!!:D

J C · 08-10-2009 9:44pm

monosharp wrote: »

Show me 1 single example of this research.

This paper argues that the evolution of mammalian ribosomes from prokaryotes requires major mutation and selection events to change a prokaryote-like ribosome into the mammalian mitochondrial ribosomes observed today. However, computer simulations with yeast and human genomes have shown that natural selection is unable to create new beneficial structures from random mutational events. Experiments introducing minor changes in the RNA and protein sequences of ribosomes have also demonstrated that these changes are deleterious and lead to decreased fitness.

It is apparent from the knowledge gained about mitochondria ribosome structure and function since the proposal of the Serial Endosymbiosis Theory that prokaryotes are not the ancestors of eukaryote or mammalian mitochondria.

see the full paper here ... enjoy:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/serial-endosymbiotic-theory

...and here are some more peer reviewed and fully referenced papers if you wish to immerce yourself in Creation Science!!!:D

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1

alfranken · 08-10-2009 10:43pm

J C wrote: »

...the irreducible Specified Complexity observed in living organisms MUST have began as complex systems equivalent to or higher than their current levels of CSI ... unless there were repeated inputs of intelligent activity ... which is a possiblity that Science cannot rule out at this stage!!!:D:eek:

Speaking as a Bible-Believing Christian, I believe that the entire intelligent input occurred at one point in time ... but as a Creation Scientist I cannot rule out the possibility that there was repeated intelligent inputs ... and there is active research currently underway to establish the veracity or otherwise of this possibility!!!!

..I have already told you that Creation Scientists have open minds on issues that they haven't scientifically confirmed ... unlike most Evolutionists, who only question the detail ... but not the overall Hypothesis of Spontaneous Evolution!!!!:):D

...another reason why Creation Science is 'light years' ahead of the Evolutionist equivalent!!!:D

J C · 09-10-2009 8:33am

alfranken wrote: »

...this puppy is another beautiful, originally perfect product of Irreducible Specified Complexity that is a gift to Humanity from God!!!:cool:

...and the reason the puppy is sad is because we live in a 'fallen' world and so many people are refusing Salvation ... and going to Hell when they die!!!

Zombrex · 09-10-2009 9:55am

J C wrote: »

...this puppy is another beautiful, originally perfect product of Irreducible Specified Complexity that is a gift to Humanity from God!!!:cool:

Well done for just undermining your entire argument about adaptation in a post flood world. :cool:

wolfsbane · 09-10-2009 8:14pm

Dawkins on spontaneous evolution:

"... the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.139-141)

"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", 1986, pp.143,146).
:pac::pac::pac:

wolfsbane · 09-10-2009 8:22pm

The Theory of Evolution - non-falsifiable:

Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich says that the Theory of Evolution is “outside empirical science.”
Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.
:pac::pac::pac:

wolfsbane · 09-10-2009 8:31pm

2009 — The Voyage That Shook The World public screenings, R of Ire. Ph: 0845 6800 264:

Saturday 10 October 2009
8.00pm Silver Springs Moran Hotel, Harbour Suite, Ph: 024 25964 or 086 1732034
Tivoli, Cork, County Cork
The Voyage That Shook The World.
Philip Bell

Sunday 11 October 2009
6.00pm Meadowlands Hotel, Ph: (00353) 06671 94404 or 08515 41673
Oakpark, Tralee, County Kerry
The Voyage That Shook The World.
Philip Bell

Deconstructing Darwin Tour to the Republic of Ireland with Philip Bell, Phil Robinson:

Friday 9 October 2009
8.00pm public meeting, River of Life Church, Ph: (00353) 09064 78160, nr Leisure World
Grace Road, Athlone, Co. West Meath
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea under the Spotlight.
Philip Bell

Sunday 11 October 2009
10.30am Tralee Bible Church, Ph: (00353) 6671 94404
Collis Sands House, Killeen, Tralee, County Kerry
How to Share the Christian Faith Effectively.
Philip Bell

Apologies for late posting of the Friday event.

The Mad Hatter · 09-10-2009 11:23pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dawkins on spontaneous evolution:

"... the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.139-141)

"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", 1986, pp.143,146).
:pac::pac::pac:

I'm sure you think you have a point.

Have you noticed that whatever source you copy-pasted those quotes from, in each instance, reduced more than a page of text - possibly as many as three pages - to a single paragraph? Don't you find that suspicious?

robindch · 09-10-2009 11:31pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dawkins on spontaneous evolution

Honestly, wolfsbane, if you put as much time into reading and learning about biology from competent authorities, instead of from cranks and single-issue fanatics, you'd be good enough to make a real contribution to our understanding of the world we live in

I don't quite understand how creationism sits with you since you're certainly smart enough not to be caught out by it.

J C · 10-10-2009 9:39am

Wicknight wrote: »

Well done for just undermining your entire argument about adaptation in a post flood world. :cool:

...where did I rule out/undermine adaptability? ... irreducible specified complexity can be specified to produce adaptability ... and it obvously and objectively has been so specified in living organisms!!!:D;)

...Human ingenuity does this all of the time ... an automatic thermostat, is an example of an irreducible specified complex object, that has been specified to produce adaptability to environmental temperature changes!!!:D

J C · 10-10-2009 9:47am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dawkins on spontaneous evolution:

"... the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.139-141)

"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", 1986, pp.143,146).
:pac::pac::pac:

...and we now know that the odds against the sequence for just one small specific protein being spontaneously generated are a million billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion to one (10^132 to one)!!!:D:)

J C · 10-10-2009 9:54am

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm sure you think you have a point.

Have you noticed that whatever source you copy-pasted those quotes from, in each instance, reduced more than a page of text - possibly as many as three pages - to a single paragraph? Don't you find that suspicious?

...NO...it isn't in the least 'suspicious'...

...the quotes are valid ... and they provide amazing evidence of how impossible it actually is, to climb 'Mount Improbable'!!!!:):D:eek:

J C · 10-10-2009 10:02am

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Dawkins on spontaneous evolution

"... the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.139-141)

"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", 1986, pp.143,146).
:pac::pac::pac:

robindch
Honestly, wolfsbane, if you put as much time into reading and learning about biology from competent authorities, instead of from cranks and single-issue fanatics, you'd be good enough to make a real contribution to our understanding of the world we live in

....could I gently remind you that Wolfsbane was posting from the writings of Prof Richard Dawkins!!!!

...anyway, do you wish to comment on the serious evidential issues raised by Prof Dawkins in relation to Materialistic Evolution?

To give you something to 'chew on' the following quotes (emphasis mine) from 'The Blind Watchmaker' (in red and my comments in black) illustrate just how impossible and implausible the concept of Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution actually is:-

"Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability." ...an excellent start!!!

"The basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don't need to postulate a designer in order to understand life."...this is a valid hypothesis (but note the deeply-religious undertones of it's objective)... and it's invalidity if there was in fact, a 'Designer'.

"Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. And that vital first step was a difficult one because, at its heart, there lies what seems to be a paradox...But we have to assist this cumulative selection to get started. It won't go unless we provide a catalyst...And that catalyst, it seems, is unlikely to come into existence spontaneously."...an admission of defeat at the start!!!

"The answer that we have arrived at is that complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have occurred by random chance alone."...yes, it's called irreducible specified complexity ... and it can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence!!!!

"The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem." ...the ultimate 'chicken and egg' problem ... and please remember that Abiogenesis has neither the 'chicken' nor the 'egg'!!!

"But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! Some people see this as a fundamental flaw in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker. They see it as the ultimate proof that there must originally have been a designer." ...yes, you said it Richard ... and we do indeed see the flaw and the proof as described!!!!!!!

"But in this chapter we are asking how improbable, how miraculous, a single event we are allowed to postulate. What is the largest single event of sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck,that we are allowed to get away with in our theories, and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?"...10^132 to one should do it !!!!

"I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right."...fair enough, he is an honest, but mistaken man!!!!

"The one thing we know for certain is that life has arisen once, here on this very planet. But we have no idea at all whether there is life anywhere else in the universe. It is entirely possible there isn't...It is entirely possible that our backwater of a planet is literally the only one that has ever born life."...with the exception of spirit beings, you are probably correct Richard!!!!

"Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? Begin by giving a name to the probability, however low it is, that life will originate on any randomly designated planet of some particular type. Call this the spontaneous generation probability or SGP...Suppose that our best guess of the SGP is some very very small number, say one in a billion. This is obviously such a small probability that we haven't the faintest hope of duplicating such a fantastically lucky, miraculous event as the origin of life in our laboratory experiments."....how about one in a million billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion to just to get the amino acid seqence right for just one small protein, to say nothing about how the protein could then be synthesised or any of the millions of other pieces of closely co-ordinated irreducible specified complex information found in living things?!!!
...and it's no surprise that we haven't the faintest hope of producing a spontaneous origin of life in our laboratory experiments...because it is a physical impossibility!!!!

"It is often pointed out that chemists have failed in their attempts to duplicate the spontaneous origin of life in the laboratory."...it is the biological equivalent of a physicist trying to produce a 'perpetual motion machine'!!!!

"To conclude this argument, the maximum amount of luck that we are allowed to assume, before we reject a particular theory of the origin of life, has odds of one in N, where N is the number of suitable planets in the universe...let us put an upper limit of 1 in 100 billion billion.".

...please let me remind you about the odds of one in a million billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion to just to get the amino acid seqence right for just one small protein!!!

...sounds like Evolutionary Biologists need to urgently do a 'crash course' in mathematical probability ... or talk to a Mathematicain!!!

"But although we can't comprehend these levels of improbability in our minds, we shouldn't just run away from them in terror."...we should simply accept that they are mathematical impossibilities and therefore only an Omnipotent God is capable of doing it!!!
....and if you are Unsaved you shouldn't live in 'terror' of numbers ... you should fear instead, the existence of a Just God ... and what that means for your eternal destiny!!

"If the theory that DNA and its copying machinery arose spontaneously is so improbable that it obliges us to assume that life is very rare in the universe, and may even be unique to Earth, our first resort is to try to find a more probable theory. So, can we come up with any speculations about a relatively probable way in which cumulative selection might have got its start?" ...sounds like he is 'grasping at straws' here ... and without the appliance of intelligence, the simple answer is NO!!!!

"Most textbooks give greatest weight to the family of theories based on an organic 'primeval soup'...The missing link for this class of theories is still the origin of replication. The building blocks haven't come together in a self-replicating chain like RNA. Maybe one day they will...all other theories of the origin of life, may sound far-fetched to you and hard to believe. Does it sound to you as though it would need a miracle to make randomly jostling atoms join together into self-replicating molecules? Well, at times it does to me too."...I totally agree with you, Richard, on this one !!

"In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it's worth, it is also the whole point of this book."...God loves a trier!!!
...although perhaps not a person who is trying to rule out His existence!!!
....and Darwin really never got much past postulating the role of NS in the selection of pre-existing diversity to create adaptability (which Creation Scientists fully accept)!!!
...like I have said previously, if Darwin were alive today he would probably be a Creation Scientist!!!

"An apparently (to ordinary human consciousness) miraculous theory is exactly the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life...A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising...although the odds against the coincidence are extremely high, we can still calculate them. They are not literally zero...It could happen. The odds against such coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not incalculably great."...the odds can be calculated allright!!!:D

....and they are the equivalent of about a billion billion billion billion billion billion times the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe for the odds against getting the sequence right for just one small protein???
...I'd say that it was a miracle allright!!!
...and isn't it amazing that the materialists are now resorting to miracles to explain the origins of life while Creation Scientists are using logic and observed reality to reach their scientific conclusions on the subject?!!!!

"But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself...To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer."...God is LOGICALLY therefore an omnipotent and transcendent God !!!

....Prof Dawkins fundamental error in all of this is his refusal to accept what the evidence is clearly 'telling' him ... that God exists ... and He created everything, just like He said He did!!!!

"...Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."...as Creation Scientists, we are un-emotional and objectively detached about these things!!!
...we are not so much 'delighted' as 'satisfied' that this fact provides compelling evidence for a Young Earth, Direct Creation AND a worldwide extinction event caused by a worldwide flood!!!

"The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian world view, as it occasionally is."...it certainly isn't much of a help either!!!:D

.

Morbert · 10-10-2009 1:22pm

J C wrote: »

....could I gently remind you that Wolfsbane was posting from the writings of Prof Richard Dawkins!!!!

...anyway, do you wish to comment on the serious evidential issues raised by Prof Dawkins in relation to Materialistic Evolution?

To give you something to 'chew on' the following quotes (emphasis mine) from 'The Blind Watchmaker' (in red and my comments in black) illustrate just how impossible and implausible the concept of Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution actually is:-

"Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability." ...an excellent start!!!

"The basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don't need to postulate a designer in order to understand life."...this is a valid hypothesis (but note the deeply-religious undertones of it's objective)... and it's invalidity if there was in fact, a 'Designer'.

"Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. And that vital first step was a difficult one because, at its heart, there lies what seems to be a paradox...But we have to assist this cumulative selection to get started. It won't go unless we provide a catalyst...And that catalyst, it seems, is unlikely to come into existence spontaneously."...an admission of defeat at the start!!!

"The answer that we have arrived at is that complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have occurred by random chance alone."...yes, it's called irreducible specified complexity ... and it can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence!!!!

"The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem." ...the ultimate 'chicken and egg' problem ... and please remember that Abiogenesis has neither the 'chicken' nor the 'egg'!!!

"But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! Some people see this as a fundamental flaw in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker. They see it as the ultimate proof that there must originally have been a designer." ...yes, you said it Richard ... and we do indeed see the flaw and the proof as described!!!!!!!

"But in this chapter we are asking how improbable, how miraculous, a single event we are allowed to postulate. What is the largest single event of sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck,that we are allowed to get away with in our theories, and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?"...10^132 to one should do it !!!!

"I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right."...fair enough, he is an honest, but mistaken man!!!!

"The one thing we know for certain is that life has arisen once, here on this very planet. But we have no idea at all whether there is life anywhere else in the universe. It is entirely possible there isn't...It is entirely possible that our backwater of a planet is literally the only one that has ever born life."...with the exception of spirit beings, you are probably correct Richard!!!!

"Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? Begin by giving a name to the probability, however low it is, that life will originate on any randomly designated planet of some particular type. Call this the spontaneous generation probability or SGP...Suppose that our best guess of the SGP is some very very small number, say one in a billion. This is obviously such a small probability that we haven't the faintest hope of duplicating such a fantastically lucky, miraculous event as the origin of life in our laboratory experiments."....how about one in a million billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion to just to get the amino acid seqence right for just one small protein, to say nothing about how the protein could then be synthesised or any of the millions of other pieces of closely co-ordinated irreducible specified complex information found in living things?!!!
...and it's no surprise that we haven't the faintest hope of producing a spontaneous origin of life in our laboratory experiments...because it is a physical impossibility!!!!

"It is often pointed out that chemists have failed in their attempts to duplicate the spontaneous origin of life in the laboratory."...it is the biological equivalent of a physicist trying to produce a 'perpetual motion machine'!!!!

"To conclude this argument, the maximum amount of luck that we are allowed to assume, before we reject a particular theory of the origin of life, has odds of one in N, where N is the number of suitable planets in the universe...let us put an upper limit of 1 in 100 billion billion.".

...please let me remind you about the odds of one in a million billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion billion billlion billion bilion billion billion billion to just to get the amino acid seqence right for just one small protein!!!

"But although we can't comprehend these levels of improbability in our minds, we shouldn't just run away from them in terror."...we should simply accept that they are mathematical impossibilities and therefore only an Omnipotent God is capable of doing it!!!
....and if you are Unsaved you shouldn't live in 'terror' of numbers ... you should fear instead, the existence of a Just God ... and what that means for your eternal destiny!!

"If the theory that DNA and its copying machinery arose spontaneously is so improbable that it obliges us to assume that life is very rare in the universe, and may even be unique to Earth, our first resort is to try to find a more probable theory. So, can we come up with any speculations about a relatively probable way in which cumulative selection might have got its start?" ...sounds like he is 'grasping at straws' here ... and without the appliance of intelligence, the simple answer is NO!!!!

"Most textbooks give greatest weight to the family of theories based on an organic 'primeval soup'...The missing link for this class of theories is still the origin of replication. The building blocks haven't come together in a self-replicating chain like RNA. Maybe one day they will...all other theories of the origin of life, may sound far-fetched to you and hard to believe. Does it sound to you as though it would need a miracle to make randomly jostling atoms join together into self-replicating molecules? Well, at times it does to me too."...I totally agree with you, Richard, on this one !!

"In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it's worth, it is also the whole point of this book."...God loves a trier!!!
...although perhaps not a person who is trying to rule out His existence!!!
....and Darwin really never got much past postulating the role of NS in the selection of pre-existing diversity to create adaptability (which Creation Scientists fully accept)!!!
...like I have said previously, if Darwin were alive today he would probably be a Creation Scientist!!!

"An apparently miraculous theory is exactly the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life...A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising...although the odds against the coincidence are extremely high, we can still calculate them. They are not literally zero...It could happen. The odds against such coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not incalculably great."...the odds can be calculated allright!!!:D
....how about a billion billion billion billion billion billion times the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe as the 'number' we are dealing with for the odds against getting the sequence right for just one small protein???
...I'd say that it was a miracle allright!!!
...and isn't it amazing that the materialists are now resorting to miracles to explain the origins of life while Creation Scientists are using logic and observed reality to reach their scientific conclusions on the subject?!!!!

"But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself...To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer."...God is LOGICALLY therefore an omnipotent and transcendent God !!!

....Prof Dawkins fundamental error in all of this is his refusal to accept what the evidence is clearly 'telling' him ... that God exists ... and He created everything, just like He said He did!!!!

"...Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."...as Creation Scientists, we are un-emotional and objectively detached about these things!!!
...we are not so much 'delighted' as 'satisfied' that this fact provides compelling evidence for a Young Earth, Direct Creation AND a worldwide extinction event caused by a worldwide flood!!!

"The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian world view, as it occasionally is."...it certainly isn't much of a help either!!!:D

.

That is all misrepresentation and quote mining. Your post should be disregarded.

J C · 10-10-2009 1:49pm

Morbert wrote: »

That is all misrepresentation and quote mining. Your post should be disregarded.

...I diagnose a serious case of acute Denial ... that can only be treated with a strong 'poultice' of logic and fact!!!!

...so slap yourself up on the couch there ... and let's have a look at you!!!:eek::D

....evolution is 'on the rack' ... based on the words of one of it's leading proponents ... and this is the best you can come up with???:eek::D:)

...the quotes are necessarily compounded in some cases for brevity ... but they present a fair picture of the arguments being put forward.

...go check them out here

http://evolution.powernet.ru/library/watchmaker.htm

...use the 'find' button to identify the quotes ... and do read around the quotes to see their full context!!!

...anybody ready to 'give up your oul sins' ... and be Saved yet????

Morbert · 10-10-2009 2:44pm

J C wrote: »

...I diagnose a serious case of acute Denial ... that can only be treated with a strong 'poultice' of logic and fact!!!!

...so slap yourself up on the couch there ... and let's have a look at you!!!:eek::D

....evolution is 'on the rack' ... based on the words of one of it's leading proponents ... and this is the best you can come up with???:eek::D:)

...the quotes are necessarily compounded in some cases for brevity ... but they present a fair picture of the arguments being put forward.

...go check them out here

http://evolution.powernet.ru/library/watchmaker.htm

...use the 'find' button to identify the quotes ... and do read around the quotes to see their full context!!!

...anybody ready to 'give up your oul sins' ... and be Saved yet????

...or do you even want to save your blushes when somebody asks you if you are still an Evolutionist ... by answering in the negative?

Evolution is not on the rack. Evolution has been shown to be true by those who investigate natural history.

J C · 10-10-2009 6:10pm

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution is not on the rack. Evolution has been shown to be true by those who investigate natural history.

...an even worse dose of acute Denial, than I thought ... and it hasn't responded a strong 'poultice' of logic and fact ... so what are we to do now???
... I think it is in the hands of God at this stage!!!

...lads, if you're not going to bury Evolution you will have to provide some evidence that it isn't 'brain dead' already ... by trying to answer some/all of the issues that I have raised in relation to 'The Dead Watchmaker'!!:eek::D:)

wolfsbane · 10-10-2009 7:04pm

Wicknight wrote: »

This is, to be honest, some what of a dead end because our version of "technical papers" is a proper scientific study and Wolfsbanes is any Creationist nonsense that Answers in Genesis will publish that has columns and graphs.

So we really aren't talking about the same thing. Wolfsbane has never been able to demonstrate where the actual science is in any of the papers he has copied and pasted, but it gives him an excuse to say we are ignoring him.

You guys are in the most painful stage of denial - where reality is beginning to break through and you are kicking against the goads.

You assert there is no science in Creationism. When we produce it, you dismiss it as just columns and graphs. When your own scientists expose the frailty - indeed, foolishness - of the theory of evolution, you dismiss them too. Deep down you know it is not the reality.

Please remember - we are not trying to win any arguments, so you don't need to admit defeat. We seek only to bring you to the light, just as we once were. There is no shame in forsaking error for truth.

kiffer · 10-10-2009 9:41pm

J C . Would you mind showing your work on those odds?
You've repeated them a few times but I seem to have missed how you established them.

Wolfsbane, would you mind responding to the first part of post 17971?

2Scoops · 10-10-2009 11:15pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

When we produce it, you dismiss it as just columns and graphs. When your own scientists expose the frailty - indeed, foolishness - of the theory of evolution, you dismiss them too. Deep down you know it is not the reality.

Example of creation science please. You know, like we talked about: with a hypothesis being tested, a detailed methods section and results. Oh yeah, and it has to be linked to creationism. It's really rather simple. It's shocking that you haven't been able to produce one yet.

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 11:30pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Example of creation science please. You know, like we talked about: with a hypothesis being tested, a detailed methods section and results. Oh yeah, and it has to be linked to creationism. It's really rather simple. It's shocking that you haven't been able to produce one yet.

There ya go,

There seems to be a few actually, will read one sometime, when I've nothing better to do and comment it on it here

Thanks JC btw..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/serial-endosymbiotic-theory

J C · 11-10-2009 8:27am

Malty_T wrote: »

There ya go,

There seems to be a few actually, will read one sometime, when I've nothing better to do and comment it on it here
Thanks JC btw..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/serial-endosymbiotic-theory

J C · 11-10-2009 8:41am

wolfsbane wrote: »

You guys are in the most painful stage of denial - where reality is beginning to break through and you are kicking against the goads.

You assert there is no science in Creationism. When we produce it, you dismiss it as just columns and graphs. When your own scientists expose the frailty - indeed, foolishness - of the theory of evolution, you dismiss them too. Deep down you know it is not the reality.

Please remember - we are not trying to win any arguments, so you don't need to admit defeat. We seek only to bring you to the light, just as we once were. There is no shame in forsaking error for truth.

....I went through the transition from Evolutionist to Creation Scientist myself ... and the 'initial denial' stage was indeed very painful ... but I can assure everyone that there is 'life after evolution' ... and once you allow the 'scales to fall off your eyes' both science and life become much more exciting and interesting!!!!:)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments