The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

Really? My understanding is that most geneticists believe that all humans are descended from a group that left Africa between 45,000 and 95,000 years ago. This would indicate tens of thousands of years of isolation between, say, Native Americans and Native Australasians. Yet I am unaware of any biological hindrances that come close to preventing interbreeding between a Cherokee and an aboriginie (Not sure if that term is PC these days).

Yes all humans are descended from the same small group. Estimates have put it at around 30,000 people. We were very nearly wiped out as a species.

You're asking why the varying groups can still interbred now? Well a few reasons.

The groups have not been isolated. There wasn't one single migration and then all contact stopped. Remember you are talking about travel tens of thousands of years ago. The groups didn't just march to different parts of the globe. Generations would have come and gone a dozen times over in an area we would consider quite small.

There hasn't been enough time. I said a hundred thousand years or more. The groups were not isolated for anything like 100 thousand years. How long were the aboriginals isolated in Australia for example?

You can see the way the different ethnic groups are diverging already. Take an african amd an asian and compare them for example. The differences are small but as more time goes by and more differences appear the greater the gulf becomes.

Look at dogs for example. Most can still bred with eachother biologically at least but given more time they won't be.

Look at horses and donkeys. They can just about still bred with eachother but the offspring are almost always sterile. Given.more time and they won't be able to interbred

Zombrex

virmilitaris wrote: »

Without modern travel, if Europe and China for example remained isolated from each other for a hundred thousand years or more than the people in Europe and the people in China would probably no longer be able to interbred and would then be considered a separate species.

PDN wrote: »

This would indicate tens of thousands of years of isolation between, say, Native Americans and Native Australasians.

Hundreds of thousands of years > Tens of thousands of years

Homo nethanderalis seems to have been section of homo rhodesiensis that split off in Europe earlier than Homo sapiens evolved.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Humanevolutionchart.png

* some debate over whether Nethanderalis is a seperate species or not, just for illustration.

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

/Sets phasers to sarcasm
My God!
A theory that is adapted to new information and evidence?!

There are two possible types of information though. Information that supports a theory and information that debunks a theory. In science, when you find information that debunks a theory the theory is supposed to be dropped. This happens in all the serious sciences like physics for example. This has happened time and again in biology too and yet Darwinism is still the dominant theory.

There is a lot of evidence that this earth went through more upheavals in the geologically recent past than a lot of people are willing to accept. These upheavals counter against Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism which is vital for Darwin's process to work.

Everyone seems to think that we are all transitional forms and we should not expect to find what creationists think Darwin meant by transitional forms. Then Wicknight points out that transitional forms have been found. So which is it lads? If Wicknight's transitional forms are to be accepted then the millions that Darwin predicted would be found should also be in evidence. They are not. So either the transitional forms that Wicknight presents are valid or they are not. If they are, then where are all the others? If we should not expect to find what creationists believe transitional forms should look like, then why is everyone still looking for them and rejoicing when they find them? The whole think stinks to high heaven. Darwinism is not science, its a religion, it requires faith to accept it as true.

However, there is hard evidence for a super intellect at the very heart of life's functional systems. Even in the most basic lifeforms we find living systems precessing information and executing commands in seconds what it takes the world's best super computers to do in one year working around the clock. System like that don't just pop into existence without some sort of intelligence at the helm. And if that's the case then Darwinism fails miserably right from the get go.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone seems to think that we are all transitional forms and we should not expect to find what creationists think Darwin meant by transitional forms. Then Wicknight points out that transitional forms have been found. So which is it lads?

Both. We do not expect to find what Creationists call "transitional" fossils, ie the things you describe as animals with non-functional stumps.

We do exact to find actual transitional fossils, species that are adapting to changing environment and will eventually evolve into completely different animals, while retaining features that function at all points.

Darwinian evolution predicts that all fossils except for fossils of species that simply died out, will be transitional forms. And this is what we find in the fossil record.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If Wicknight's transitional forms are to be accepted then the millions that Darwin predicted would be found should also be in evidence. They are not.

Again, plate tectonics. What part of that did you not understand the first time?

Soul Winner wrote: »

So either the transitional forms that Wicknight presents are valid or they are not. if they are then where are all the others?

There are no others. All fossils except for species that are about to die out are transitional fossils. This is what evolution predicts, this is what we find. We have never found a non-transitional fossil (except for species that were about to completely die out).

I suspect the problem you are having is that you are still clinging to this false Creationist idea of a transitional fossil being an animal that suddenly is born with a non-functioning stump. That is not a transitional fossil because such an animal doesn't transition into anything, it dies.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we should not expect to find what creationists believe transitional forms should look like then why is everyone still looking for them and rejoicing when they find them?

No one is looking for what Creationist call a transitional fossil. It should not come as any surprise that Creationists do not dictate to scientists what transitional fossil should mean. Creationist have hi-jacked the term and replaced its meaning with non-Darwinian nonsense, and then claimed we have never found one of these nonsense fossils. They are correct, we never have. But then we wouldn't expect to, such a fossil would disprove natural selection.

What we do find is actual transitional forms, species where you can clearly determine that they are in-between two other species on the evolutionary tree.

Darwinian evolution predicts that all species are transitional forms (except species that die out), but in order to actually see this you need the species before it and the ones after it. And this is what we do find.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The whole think stinks to high heaven. Darwinism is not science, its a religion, it requires faith.

The only thing that stinks is the Creationist nonsense that you peddle Soul Winner.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is hard evidence for a super intellect at the very heart of life's functional systems.

Ignorance is not hard evidence.

PDN

virmilitaris wrote: »

if Europe and China for example remained isolated from each other for a hundred thousand years or more

PDN wrote:

This would indicate tens of thousands of years

Wicknight wrote:

Hundreds of thousands of years > Tens of thousands of years

And, Wicknight, Hundreds of thousands of years is even > a hundred thousand years. If you're going to try to be a smart ass then it's better to be smart while you're doing it. Otherwise you're just being an ass. :pac:

Btw, when I get a computer with a 500 inch screen I might comment on your supersized graphic.

himnextdoor wrote:

Which in no way refutes what virmilitaris has said,

I never said it did refute it. virmilitaris is entitled to believe that groups of humans can be separated for tens of thousands of years without the slightest impediment to interbreeding, but that somewhere around the 100,000 year mark such an impediment will wonderfully occur. I had no intention of refuting his right to make such a faith statement. If that's what he chooses to believe then far be it from me to interfere with his faith.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And, Wicknight, Hundreds of thousands of years is even > a hundred thousand years. If you're going to try to be a smart ass then it's better to be smart while you're doing it. Otherwise you're just being an ass. :pac:

The point is that we would not expect to see this change yet, but we would expect to see it over a longer period, and we do in the fossil record. There are a number of species in the homo genus.

And I probably was being a bit of an ass

PDN wrote: »

Btw, when I get a computer with a 500 inch screen I might comment on your supersized graphic.

Yeah it wasn't that big on Wikipedia

PDN wrote: »

I never said it did refute it. virmilitaris is entitled to believe that groups of humans can be separated for tens of thousands of years without the slightest impediment to interbreeding, but that somewhere around the 100,000 year mark such an impediment will wonderfully occur.

It shouldn't be much of a surprise, nor does something wonderful happen.

For example, look at different breeds of dogs. Now dogs have only been separated from the wolf for a few thousand years, and can still all technically interbreed, so they are not as yet a different species.

But can you imagine a chihuahua physically breading with a Dalmatian? It isn't going to happen, even if they are not separated by geography.

For the next few thousand years chihuahua's are never going to bread with larger dogs. This will mean the accumulation of mutations in them are never going to find their way to the other larger dogs. Eventually the difference will be so large in the chromosomes that they won't be able to breed at all. And they will be difference species. This can actually happen pretty fast once the build up has taken a long time.

Humans, by inventing modern travel, have probably stopped any chance of the homo sapiens species separating. We are not going to get build up of mutations in one isolated population group. But we shouldn't forget that only 50,000 years ago there was another species, Nethanderals, very similar to humans running around, using tools, building houses, cooking etc. They existed as a separate species precisely because of what virmiltaris is talking about.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah it wasn't that big on Wikipedia

But it was - at least in terms of file size. Anyway, the oversized image has been removed and a link put in its place.

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are two possible types of information though. Information that supports a theory and information that debunks a theory in it's current form. In science, when you find information that debunks a theory the theory is supposed to be modified or dropped.

Fixed and I don't even know that much about science...

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are two possible types of information though. Information that supports a theory and information that debunks a theory. In science, when you find information that debunks a theory the theory is supposed to be dropped. This happens in all the serious sciences like physics for example. This has happened time and again in biology too and yet Darwinism is still the dominant theory.

There is no information that debunks Darwinian evolution.

There is a lot of evidence that this earth went through more upheavals in the geologically recent past than a lot of people are willing to accept. These upheavals counter against Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism which is vital for Darwin's process to work.

What upheavals in the geologically recent past are we unwilling to accept?

Everyone seems to think that we are all transitional forms and we should not expect to find what creationists think Darwin meant by transitional forms. Then Wicknight points out that transitional forms have been found. So which is it lads? If Wicknight's transitional forms are to be accepted then the millions that Darwin predicted would be found should also be in evidence. They are not. So either the transitional forms that Wicknight presents are valid or they are not. If they are, then where are all the others? If we should not expect to find what creationists believe transitional forms should look like, then why is everyone still looking for them and rejoicing when they find them? The whole think stinks to high heaven. Darwinism is not science, its a religion, it requires faith to accept it as true.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

Stephen Jay Gould was a leading expert in evolutionary biology, and his comment here reflects the scientific community. There are transitional forms. So the problem is you are not addressing the evidence people are presenting. Scientists have found the type of transitional forms that Darwin predicted. There are not millions, but there are more than we would expect. More than enough to build a solid picture of natural history. Even a single transitional form among larger groups is enough to quell the accusation that "no transitional forms exist".

However, there is hard evidence for a super intellect at the very heart of life's functional systems. Even in the most basic lifeforms we find living systems precessing information and executing commands in seconds what it takes the world's best super computers to do in one year working around the clock. System like that don't just pop into existence without some sort of intelligence at the helm. And if that's the case then Darwinism fails miserably right from the get go.

Nobody is claiming systems pop into existence. This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

J C

johnthemull wrote: »

GET THROUGH LIFE WITHOUT THE CRUTCH OF EASY ANSWERS
THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS
WHEN YOU DIE IT WILL END
PLEASE STOP THE ENDLESS FANTASY
BURY YOUR GODS WITH SANTA CLAUS

God is alive ... and loves you!!!:)

J C

Robert ninja wrote: »

A lot of things about evolution seem to be far from your comprehension, Soul Winner, which you demonstrate time and time again with each post.

This is because 'evolution' is a 'weasel word' that is all things to all people ... and is claimed to mean anything and everything from the NS of pre-existing genetic diversity (which is true) ... to the supposed ability of pondslime to spontaneously sprout wings and legs via accumulated mistakes (which is false)!!!!

When the serious logical and evidential flaws of Evolution are pointed out to the Evolutionists on this thread they go into denial ... and often claim that evolution is 'misunderstood' ... when the real problem is that evolution's shortcomings are patently obvious ... and and can be fully understood by anybody who bothers to study it ... for even five minutes!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

The point is that we would not expect to see this change yet, but we would expect to see it over a longer period, and we do in the fossil record. There are a number of species in the homo genus.

And I probably was being a bit of an ass

Is this is some kind of speciation??:pac:

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

Btw, when I get a computer with a 500 inch screen I might comment on your supersized graphic.

Just use your mouse wheel and scroll back, it will shrink it. Or just click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Humanevolutionchart.png

I never said it did refute it. virmilitaris is entitled to believe that groups of humans can be separated for tens of thousands of years without the slightest impediment to interbreeding, but that somewhere around the 100,000 year mark such an impediment will wonderfully occur.

The human groups that left Africa were all genetically very similar. When the groups ancestors separated, different genes became more dominant in the differing populations and so the varying groups started to become more and more different genetically. You can see this yourself in the way these different ethnic groups look.

Can I assume that you understand that two animals of a different species (such as a dog and a cat) can't interbred because of their genetics ? (and maybe other reasons such as morphological differences)

Some animals from different species can interbred such as a horse and a donkey because they are still similar enough genetically to do so.

So take two populations of any species (such as humans) and put them on two different isolated islands. This will result in the two populations becoming more and more genetically different over many generations. We can see examples of this literally everywhere on the planet. You see it when you visit Africa or Asia.

We've already established that one of the main factors affecting the ability to breed is how genetically different two populations are.

What do you think will happen if these populations are separated for 100,000 years ? 200,000 years ? 300,000 years ?

The two populations will continue to diverge genetically until eventually they are so different that they can no longer interbred.

Do you not accept this ?

J C

virmilitaris wrote: »

Just use your mouse wheel and scroll back, it will shrink it. Or just click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Humanevolutionchart.png



The human groups that left Africa were all genetically very similar. When the groups ancestors separated, different genes became more dominant in the differing populations and so the varying groups started to become more and more different genetically. You can see this yourself in the way these different ethnic groups look.

Can I assume that you understand that two animals of a different species (such as a dog and a cat) can't interbred because of their genetics ? (and maybe other reasons such as morphological differences)

Some animals from different species can interbred such as a horse and a donkey because they are still similar enough genetically to do so.

So take two populations of any species (such as humans) and put them on two different isolated islands. This will result in the two populations becoming more and more genetically different over many generations. We can see examples of this literally everywhere on the planet. You see it when you visit Africa or Asia.

We've already established that one of the main factors affecting the ability to breed is how genetically different two populations are.

What do you think will happen if these populations are separated for 100,000 years ? 200,000 years ? 300,000 years ?

The two populations will continue to diverge genetically until eventually they are so different that they can no longer interbred.

Do you not accept this ?

No ... this is the kind of 'baloney science' that creates the opportunity for eugenics to raise its ugly head!!!

... we are all one blood ... and one race ... the Human Race ... made in the image and likeness of God ... and descended from one man and one woman ... and we can all interbreed ... and this will continue to be the case.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

This is because 'evolution' is a 'weasel word' that is all things to all people ... and is claimed to mean anything and everything from the NS of pre-existing genetic diversity (which is true) ... to the supposed ability of pondslime to spontaneously sprout wings and legs via accumulated mistakes (which is false)!!!!

No, evolution has only one meaning. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean the meaning keeps changing.

PDN

virmilitaris wrote: »

So take two populations of any species (such as humans) and put them on two different isolated islands. This will result in the two populations becoming more and more genetically different over many generations. We can see examples of this literally everywhere on the planet. You see it when you visit Africa or Asia.

We've already established that one of the main factors affecting the ability to breed is how genetically different two populations are.

What do you think will happen if these populations are separated for 100,000 years ? 200,000 years ? 300,000 years ?

The two populations will continue to diverge genetically until eventually they are so different that they can no longer interbred.

Do you not accept this ?

No, I do not accept that it will inevitably happen.

I accept that it could quite possibly happen, but I have major doubts as to the very short time spans in your hypothetical scenario. Given the complete absence of any evidence of such a process occurring among human populations so far, the numbers of consecutive or concurrent mutations that would be necessary, and the mathematical odds against each of those changes occurring, I think a much greater time span would be required if such a process were left to chance alone.

Wicknight wrote:

It shouldn't be much of a surprise, nor does something wonderful happen.

For example, look at different breeds of dogs. Now dogs have only been separated from the wolf for a few thousand years, and can still all technically interbreed, so they are not as yet a different species.

But can you imagine a chihuahua physically breading with a Dalmatian? It isn't going to happen, even if they are not separated by geography.

Ah - dogs. Yes, it is very understandable that dogs, selectively bred by humans for specific purposes, have developed different traits according to the intelligence of their designers. I must say, Wicknight, I never had you pegged as an ID proponent. But, then again, this thread is full of surprises - isn't it?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, I do not accept that it will inevitably happen.

Perhaps you can clarify this. Do you mean in general it won't inevitably happen, or specifically it won't happen for humans because we have mastered widespread travel and thus will never have isolated pockets of population?

PDN wrote: »

Given the complete absence of any evidence of such a process occurring among human populations so far

Again not quite sure what you mean here. There is tons of evidence of accumulated mutations in particular groups of people. But this has not reached the point where speciation takes place and probably never will.

PDN wrote: »

Ah - dogs. Yes, it is very understandable that dogs, selectively bred by humans for specific purposes, have developed different traits according to the intelligence of their designers.

None of that is particularly relevant to the point though. You can replace "selectively bred by humans" with natural selection. The process is the same.

A small hand bag dog will not physically be able to breed with a large wolf long before chromosome mis-match make this impossible (ie speciation takes place).

Again I'm not sure exactly what thing you are disputing so it is difficult to give you examples explaining the process of specisation.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you can clarify this. Do you mean in general it won't inevitably happen, or specifically it won't happen for humans because we have mastered widespread travel and thus will never have isolated pockets of population?

I mean that it general it won't inevitably happen. It might happen. It might not. That all depends on the length of time involved and the number and usefulness of mutations necessary.

No-one except racists think that the very minor changes we see between races so far (eg skin pigmentation, flattened noses etc) amount to anything much.

I guess, given an infinite amount of time, the odds might favour enough changes occurring to prevent interbreeding. But, then again, man existing for an infinite time span is more part of my belief system than yours, isn't it?

Again not quite sure what you mean here. There is tons of evidence of accumulated mutations in particular groups of people. But this has not reached the point where speciation takes place and probably never will.

What I mean is quite clear. Crinkly hair or almond shaped eyes don't come close to the kind of hypothetical changes that would be necessary to prevent interbreeding.

None of that is particularly relevant to the point though. You can replace "selectively bred by humans" with natural selection. The process is the same.

No, the process is not the same. Artificial selection enables mutations to occur much more frequently than natural selection. Therefore changes that would take trillions of years by natural selection can be achieved in hundreds of years by artificial selection.

Again I'm not sure exactly what thing you are disputing so it is difficult to give you examples explaining the process of specisation.

I'm disputing the faith claim, made without evidernce, that humans, if isolated by race, would inevitably be unable to breed with each other after a hundred thousand years or more. Unless, of course, we're going to go down a silly semantic route where the 'or more' is stretched to mean trillions of years. If we're going to get into that kind of silliness then I'll take a break from the argument and get back to you in a week or more.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I mean that it general it won't inevitably happen. It might happen. It might not. That all depends on the length of time involved and the number and usefulness of mutations necessary.

No-one except racists think that the very minor changes we see between races so far (eg skin pigmentation, flattened noses etc) amount to anything much.

Are you happy though that it already happened?. There have been a number of species in the homo genus. The ancestors of Humans and Nethanderals used to be the same species.

I agree that it most likely won't happen with humans since it is hard to see sections of the population being isolated for the period required, unless perhaps we get out into space or something.

PDN wrote: »

I guess, given an infinite amount of time, the odds might favour enough changes occurring to prevent interbreeding. But, then again, man existing for an infinite time span is more part of my belief system than yours, isn't it?

Again I'm not sure from a comment like this are you disputing the whole process of speciation, or just that you don't think it will happen again for humans.

The time for specisation differs based on reproduction lengths. In our ancestors it seems to have been in the period of a few hundred thousand years (between 300,000 and 700,000)

The unfortunately large chart shows this better than the numbers do.

PDN wrote: »

What I mean is quite clear. Crinkly hair or almond shaped eyes don't come close to the kind of hypothetical changes that would be necessary to prevent interbreeding.

The phenotype produced by the gene isn't as relevant to interbreeding as the change in the genetics itself. The mutations that stopped Nethanderals breeding with the group they broke off from might have caused no visible changes at all (though the opposite is probably more likely)

PDN wrote: »

No, the process is not the same. Artificial selection enables mutations to occur much more frequently than natural selection.

Not really, mutations occur at the same rate. It is just the selection process, because it is us doing it, is a lot more fine grained than the environment would be. This produces the same result faster than natural selection.

PDN wrote: »

I'm disputing the faith claim, made without evidernce, that humans, if isolated by race, would inevitably be unable to breed with each other after a hundred thousand years or more.

It is not a faith claim at all. It already happened numerous times to our ancestors, it is why we aren't all still Homo Habilis

Or for that matter, this guy

PDN wrote: »

Unless, of course, we're going to go down a silly semantic route where the 'or more' is stretched to mean trillions of years.

In the last 2 million years in our genus alone it has happened 6 times that we know about. I'm not sure where you are getting the need for trillions of years from?

But then I'm still not entirely sure I'm following your point, so apologies if you think I'm arguing against something you aren't saying.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Nobody is claiming systems pop into existence. This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

But in the absence of any guiding intelligence please explain how the first living system came into being if it didn't pop into existence? Baring in mind that even the simplest of known living systems are thousands of times more complex than anything that humans have ever designed. To believe that such systems came about by the laws of physics and chemistry is like believing that the words: "To be or not to be, that is the question." will be spelled out by Scrabble letters when they land on the ground after been thrown into the air like confetti. How many throws would it take for that relatively simple configuration of letters to come out in that order? They have a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming out like that, and even if they did it would be a complete and total fluke.

So if that's how life got going then life too is a fluke which means that it did just pop into existence. But if, as you say, that is not the case, then that means that the only explanation left is that life was designed for a purpose, as Professor Dawkins admits, it bares all the hallmarks of having been designed for a purpose. But not just by an intelligence but a super intelligence. To believe that non living chemicals can come together in this way to form even simple RNA structures on their own is a departure of rational thought. You say that you have explained how this can happen over and over and over. Can you also explain it to these guys who appear to be experts in their respective fields.

We do not, in fact, know how or where life started...clearly none of the theories above is adequate..." Dr. Stuart Kauffman

"...but how did the whole process start?...nobody really knows how it happened..." Dr. Richard Dawkins

"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory is the origin of life itself." Dr. Chris Wills

"However, the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself." Dr Kenneth Miller

"One must conclude that a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." Dr. H.P Yockey

"It must be admitted from the begining that we do not know how life began." Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Dr. Leslie Orgel

"..the theory behind theory is that you come up with truly testable ideas. Otherwise it's no different than faith. It might as well be a religion if there is no evidence for it." Dr. J. Craig Venter in a remark to Dr. Robert Shapiro about the absence of any plausible naturalistic theory of the origin of life.

"In truth the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. At the moment scientists certainly do not know how, or even if, life originated on earth from lifeless atoms." Dr. Andrew Scott

"How this momentous event occurred is still highly conjectural. According to most experts, life arose naturally by way of processes entirely explainable by the laws of physics and chemistry. However there is no definitive proof of this statement since the origin of life is not known." Dr. Christian DeDurve

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." Dr. Francis Crick

If you like I can continue with many more such quotes by other anti-creationist and anti-ID proponents.

One more what? I love this one:

"Whether the proponents of [conflicting origin of life theories] finally convince their rivals as to the most plausible origin of the first replicating structures, it is clear that the origin of life is not a simple issue...If life itself is difficult to define, you can see why explaining its origins is also going to be difficult...there is not yet consensus on the sequence of events that led to living things." Dr. Eugenie Scott

Above quotes were taken from: "Nonsense of a high order. The confused and illusory world of the atheist." by Rabbi Moshe Averick Its a great read by the way :pac:

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

To believe that such systems came about by the laws of physics and chemistry is like believing that the words: "To be or not to be, that is the question." will be spelled out by Scrabble letters when they land on the ground after been thrown into the air like confetti. How many throws would it take for that relatively simple configuration of letters to come out in that order? They have a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming out like that, and even if they did it would be a complete and total fluke.

By George, I think you have it.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

By George, I think you have it.

So life did just pop into existence? Great, that's that riddle solved, now lets go on to the next one. Ummm, oh yeah, even the simplest of living systems we know of are millions of times more unlikely to come into being by themselves than the relatively simple sequence of letters: "To be or not to be, that is the question." landing in that order on the ground after been thrown in the air. Which means that the origin of life is not just a freaky fluke, its is a veritable miracle.

Donatello

Soul Winner wrote: »

So life did just pop into existence? Great, that's that riddle solved, now lets go on to the next one. Ummm, oh yeah, even the simplest of living systems we know of are millions of times more unlikely to come into being by themselves than the relatively simple sequence of letters: "To be or not to be, that is the question." landing in that order on the ground after been thrown in the air. Which means that the origin of life is not just a freaky fluke, its is a veritable miracle.

In that case, the faith of the atheist must be much greater than the faith of the theist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

I mean that it general it won't inevitably happen. It might happen. It might not. That all depends on the length of time involved and the number and usefulness of mutations necessary.

But there are sub-groups of populations that cannot inter-breed with sub-groups of other populations. Even within populations there are members who cannot produce viable male offspring, for example, through incompatible genetic 'defects'.

The mechanisms are there and working but in large, integrated populations, natural selection would 'prefer' more-communicable genetic material than less-communicable genetic material.

But as far as cumalative change is concerned, I certainly don't see how we can be sure that ancient humans would have been capable of mating with modern humans, apart from, that is, the time-travel problems associated with that endeavour.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

So life did just pop into existence? Great, that's that riddle solved, now lets go on to the next one. Ummm, oh yeah, even the simplest of living systems we know of are millions of times more unlikely to come into being by themselves than the relatively simple sequence of letters: "To be or not to be, that is the question." landing in that order on the ground after been thrown in the air. Which means that the origin of life is not just a freaky fluke, its is a veritable miracle.

Nope, it's gone again.

p.s. Please leave the goalposts where they are; you're making it hard to keep score. (Is it 3-0 yet?)

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

Another Christian arguing from a position of ignorance. Wonderful, just what the world needs :rolleyes:

soulwinner

soulwinner wrote:

To believe that such systems came about by the laws of physics and chemistry is like believing that the words: "To be or not to be, that is the question." will be spelled out by Scrabble letters when they land on the ground after been thrown into the air like confetti. How many throws would it take for that relatively simple configuration of letters to come out in that order? They have a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming out like that,and even if they did it would be a complete and total fluke.

If the chances of the first, primitive form of self replicating molecule(s) coming about by total fluke was 1 in x (x being some arbitrarily large number), then you only need to have x habitable planets for life to form at any particular instance, on average. Add the factor of time, then you need far less than x planets. Given the huge, huge number of stars (10^24 is a lower estimate), it's not unreasonable to assume that billions, if not millions of billions or more habitable planets may exist.

The chances of one particular person winning the lotto may be next to nothing, but that doesn't take away from the fact that some person wins it most times it's played. To extend the metaphor: imagine that the person who wins the lotto one particular week believes they're the only person who plays the lotto. Once they win they'll believe they're incredibly lucky, almost impossibly so. But, it doesn't really mean anything, because the lotto is won most of the time it's played. If every winner believes they're the only one playing, then of course they think it's a "miracle."

To use your own analogy. Simultaneously throw sets of your scrabble tiles on thousands of locations on Earth over hundreds of millions or billions of years. But, not only that, at the same time throw sets of them on thousands of locations on perhaps billions or millions of billions of other planets throughout the cosmos over the same period. Given the vastness of space and the emensity of time I doubt you'd claim that your sentence might not arranage itself, at least once, by chance?

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Nope, it's gone again.

p.s. Please leave the goalposts where they are; you're making it hard to keep score. (Is it 3-0 yet?)

Nobody is moving any goalposts. The only point I'm making in all this arguing back and forth is that there is as much if not more faith in certain scientific theories as there is in religion. Life might have started as a fluke but the point is that there is no evidence for that. Those goalposts are firmly rooted to the spot, there is no moving them. What is glaringly obvious is that life exhibits traits which suggest to the mind that it was designed for a purpose. The claim of the naturalist is that it can be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry. It can't be and hasn't been nor does it look likely that it ever will be. Those who think it has are living in in a dreamworld.

Soul Winner

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If the chances of the first, primitive form of self replicating molecule(s) coming about by total fluke was 1 in x (x being some arbitrarily large number), then you only need to have x habitable planets for life to form at any particular instance, on average. Add the factor of time, then you need far less than x planets. Given the huge, huge number of stars (10^24 is a lower estimate), it's not unreasonable to assume that billions, if not trillions of billions or more habitable planets may exist.

The chances of one particular person winning the lotto may be next to nothing, but that doesn't take away from the fact that some person wins it most times it's played. To extend the metaphor: imagine that you believe you're the only person who plays the lotto. If you believe you're the only one, and you win, then you're extremely lucky. Or maybe you know others play, but you've no idea how many. If you know others play, but not how many or how often they win, then you can't make any assumptions on the odds of winning. Regardless of whether you believe you're the only one playing, or that you don't know how many play, the lotto is won pretty much every time.

To use your own analogy. Simultaneously throw sets of your scrabble tiles on thousands of locations on Earth over hundreds of millions or billions of years. But, not only that, at the same time throw sets of them on thousands of locations on perhaps trillions or billions of trillions of other planets throughout the cosmos over the same period. Given the vastness of space and the emensity of time I doubt you'd claim that your sentence might not arranage itself, at least once, by chance?

What you fail to realize is the extent of the improbability of life forming by itself. Here's how Sir Fred Hoyle puts it:

"Imagine 10 to the power of 50 blind persons (thats 10 with 50 zeros after it i.e 10,0000000000,0000000000,0000000000,0000000000,0000000000) each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." - Sir Fred Hoyle

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Another Christian arguing from a position of ignorance. Wonderful, just what the world needs :rolleyes:

He has it spot on if you ask me. The arguments that the new atheists present are childish, and are totally based in ignorance.