Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth

145 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 December 2010 - 04:42 AM

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

You can only run so many quotes links per reply (10 I think) because of a buffer in the system. So I usually just split my posts up if I'm replying to multiple points. My rule of thumb is around six or seven quotes per reply (but it varies). It keeps problems from happening.

if you attempt to run too many quotes, you'll see what I'm referring to.

#22 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 December 2010 - 05:35 AM

Actually, no it wouldnt, and this is really easy to demonstrate. Lets say, i have 5 dice, and i place them in a cup, randomly shake them around, and roll them onto a wooden table. Now, from there, lets say we recorded the exact location of the dice on the table, the number that was facing up, even the angle of the dice.

Okay, here you are attempting to equate the statistical variances of something (in this case dice) as an attribute for (or supporting) Abiogenesis (atheists usually attempt to disprove this concept. So I thank you for using it). And if you want to go that route, we can, and further expound on it to prove AbiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ improbability of happening in the first place (see Sir Fredric Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe). And from that point you will get yourself in a statistical bind as well as logical, rational and scientific conundrum.

What are the requirements, to repeat such a feat, with each dice in its exact same location, angle, and face? Quite difficult, wouldnt you say? You would have to calculate and replicate the exact speed of the hand that tossed the dice, the precise release time, etc. But, its not impossible, as clearly it was done once before.

This further makes your hopes for Abiogenesis a statistical impossibility in the first place. So thanks for that.

The fact that something occurred befoStatre, doesnt mean it will never occur again, but unless the specific requirements are duplicated, you will not likely to see it occur again. Maybe you are aware of a proto-earth condition that exists on this planet right now, but i sure dont.

First, you are assuming a Ã¢â‚¬Å“proto-EarthÃ¢â‚¬Â condition, but that is nothing more than pure speculation at best. And I have no problem with your placing your faith statements here.

Second, Ã¢â‚¬Å“IFÃ¢â‚¬Â abiogenesis even had the possibility to happen in the first place (which is Ã¢â‚¬Å“statisticallyÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“logicallyÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“rationallyÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“scientificallyÃ¢â‚¬Â impossible), then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again; because Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“IfÃ¢â‚¬Â the Ã¢â‚¬Å“ConditionsÃ¢â‚¬Â for abiogenesis to happen were even possible, then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again!

Ive managed to read some of the other posts, which seems to me, to indicate that your beef with speciation isnt that it hasnt occurred at all, but rather the degree to which it occurs. Are what the others saying regarding your beliefs about speciation, true?

No, you are incorrect. My beef with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheistic evolutionaryÃ¢â‚¬Â definition of speciation, is that it is so fluid, so as to prove evolution in the first place. In other words, atheistic evolutionists use a flexible definition to support their beliefs in evolution.

And, further, none of this goes to the OP question:

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalÃ¢â‚¬Â chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidencesÃ¢â‚¬Â for this is presupposed and contrived.

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only Ã¢â‚¬Å“ManÃ¢â‚¬Â would have a historical record of achievement!

And you have really failed to adequately address any of it (as weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll see further below).

I am willing to bet that most of your examples has to do with one attribute in humans; Intelligence. In any case, i was simply providing a simple answer to your question. Let us continue with our discussion, shall we?
I am not making the argument that whales are different. Although, of course, i would disagree, i dont know if discussing the evidence of common ancestry would constitute as derailing this argument. I only used the word "Acheive" because you used it, but the crux of the problem doesnt lie in that word, but rather, in the intelligence of human beings.

Humans haven't "Acheived" their attribute of intelligence. The human brain wasnt different 2000 years ago, than it is now, and ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Hippocrates and Plato are brilliant, intelligent thinkers in their own right. We've been able to increase our knowledge, but we haven't necessarily become more, or less, intelligent than we were 3000, 4000 years ago. The attribute that humans hold, that is, intelligence, is the same as the attribute that whales hold, i.e. their size. Like the size of whales, this attribute in humans fluctuates, as you can have people who are great, brilliant thinkers, and you can have people who couldnt understand why fire is so hot. But there is no acheivement here.

And with that in mind, we, or atleast I, was talking about specific attributes that animals have, and not how they obtained those attributes.

As to your second point, not at all. Humans are, as most animals are, curious, and are proned to trying to understand the world around them. Its why we call it human nature, because it really is human nature. Humans are proned and bound to this, just like whales are bound to their own attributes, and could not decide to change if they could. Whether or not this is because a God placed this pre-programmed nature into us or not, doesnt change the fact that a human, especially if he wasnt taught by other humans regarding society, rules, and norms, will be proned to acting out their nature.
This, again, brings me back to the point i was making above. Everything that you listed there, all points to a single attribute of mankind, that is, intelligence. Just like the attribute of a cheetah is for it to run very fast, the attribute of humans is intelligence. There is no evidence to point to the fact that humans, 2000 years, or even 4000, 6000 years ago, had a brain that  was so different than modern humans, that they were incapable of learning, for example, the atomic theory, if they were taught from birth the necessary language and knowledge.
I havent ignored that. Infact, i mentioned it, by pointing out that the attribute of human beings is intelligence. Although i wouldnt say that we've improved ALL the abilities of other creatures, id agree that we are getting closer and closer, yet in many ways, we are so far off. But the problem with that argument, is this. Much of our knowledge, our understand, our technologies, are based off of that of nature. I think Isaac Newton put it very aptly when he said "If i have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulder of giants". These creatures have done so much, and man has recognized this by mimicking them in many aspects. Its also why so many plants are the basis for many of the pharmaceutical breakthroughs.

And again, you stray from the points:

The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolvedÃ¢â‚¬Â animal achieving even ONE of the following;
An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured Ã¢â‚¬â€œ A heavier than air Ã¢â‚¬Å“craftÃ¢â‚¬Â that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea Ã¢â‚¬Å“craftÃ¢â‚¬Â that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling Ã¢â‚¬Å“craftÃ¢â‚¬Â that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

Your dialogue further makes my point. You attempt to paint humans and animals with the same brush, but you cannot (or will not?) show any evidence of any other creature that has achieved even the minutest fraction of what man has done. All youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve really done is go on about how manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intelligence is the difference. And to this I agree!!! But, it in no way refutes my points. All it really does is support what I maintain.

Further, you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t supported any refutation that any of this is any different than it has always been. And for that I thank you!

#23 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

Member

• Veteran Member
• 481 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
• Age: 34
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 14 December 2010 - 05:46 PM

My dad once told me an analogy about DNA forming randomly (like Abiogenesis).

It goes like this:

If You were to take all 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks and throw them up in the air, how many times would it take for those blocks to land (in a straight line) from A to Z?

Answer: never

#24 scott

scott

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,749 posts
• Age: 21
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• mississippi

Posted 14 December 2010 - 05:50 PM

My dad once told me an analogy about DNA forming randomly (like Abiogenesis).

It goes like this:

If You were to take all 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks and throw them up in the air, how many times would it take for those blocks to land (in a straight line) from A to Z?

Answer: never

Awesome! That's the best analogy for Abiogenesis that I've heard in awhile!

It's true, because no matter how many times you throw molecules together they aren't going to magically create DNA.

#25 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1,625 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Baton Rouge, LA
• Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
• Age: 51
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 December 2010 - 07:26 PM

Actually, no it wouldnt, and this is really easy to demonstrate. Lets say, i have 5 dice, and i place them in a cup, randomly shake them around, and roll them onto a wooden table. Now, from there, lets say we recorded the exact location of the dice on the table, the number that was facing up, even the angle of the dice.

We had a similar illustration the other day. Is this what they are saying in university now in an attempt to nullify the fact of probability in random protein synthesis.

Your illustration is quite valid, but it is valid only for the scenario given. You can't compare it to random protein synthesis. The problem is that no matter what magnitude the different angles, combinations, etc. come up to, none of them have any purpose or significance, except that they are different. So if I roll the five dice again, it's combination and configuration has a probability of equal magnitude. Say there are 10 ^ 20 combinations and configurations of the dice. None of them would do anything significant, and all of them would have a probability of 1:10^20.

The difference is that in a random chemical bonding of a specific functional 150 amino acid peptide chain, there are only a few combinations out of 20^150 combinations that will fold and function properly. Thats 20x20x20x20x20.... 150 times. Now 10^150 is 1 followed by 150 zeros. But 20 to a magnitude is eponentially greater than 10 to a magnitude. For instance 10^2=100 ; 20^2=400 4 times greater. 10^3=1000; 20^3=8000 8 times greater. 10^4=10000; 20^4=160000 16 times greater. 10^5=100,000, but 20^2 is 400 and 20^5=3.2 million 32 times greater.

So can you imagine how much greater 20^150 is than 10^150?!!

A 1 with 150 zeros is unimaginable, but the number of zeros for 20^150 would be exponential from the zeros of 10^150. And unlike the dice, a few combos will fold properly to make a functional protein, not just another purposeless variation.

I could not find the equation, but Baumgardner says that this number is actually greater than the number of possible chemical reactions that could ever take place in the universe. If you need the link I could try to find it.

#26 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 04:26 AM

My dad once told me an analogy about DNA forming randomly (like Abiogenesis).

It goes like this:

If You were to take all 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks and throw them up in the air, how many times would it take for those blocks to land (in a straight line) from A to Z?

Answer: never

That, and a million monkeys on a million typewriters with a million years, still cannot type out a page of Shakespeare.

#27 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 04:32 AM

We had a similar illustration the other day.Ã‚Â  Is this what they are saying in university now in an attempt to nullify the fact of probability in random protein synthesis.

Your illustration is quite valid, but it is valid only for the scenario given.Ã‚Â  You can't compare it to random protein synthesis. The problem is that no matter what magnitude the different angles, combinations, etc. come up to, none of them have any purpose or significance, except that they are different.Ã‚Â  So if I roll the five dice again, it's combination and configuration has a probabilityÃ‚Â  of equal magnitude.Ã‚Â  Say there are 10 ^ 20 combinations and configurations of the dice.Ã‚Â  None of them would do anything significant, and all of them would have a probability of 1:10^20.Ã‚Â

The difference is that in a random chemical bonding of a specific functional 150 amino acid peptide chain, there are only a few combinations out of 20^150 combinations that will fold and function properly.Ã‚Â  Thats 20x20x20x20x20.... 150 times.Ã‚Â  Now 10^150 is 1 followed by 150 zeros.Ã‚Â  But 20 to a magnitude is eponentially greater than 10 to a magnitude.Ã‚Â  For instance 10^2=100 ; 20^2=400 4 timesÃ‚Â  greater.Ã‚Â  10^3=1000; 20^3=8000 8 times greater.Ã‚Â  10^4=10000; 20^4=160000 16 times greater.Ã‚Â  10^5=100,000, but 20^2 is 400 and 20^5=3.2 millionÃ‚Â  32 times greater.

So can you imagine how much greaterÃ‚Â  20^150 is than 10^150?!!

A 1 with 150 zeros is unimaginable, but the number of zeros for 20^150 would be exponential from the zeros of 10^150.Ã‚Â  And unlike the dice, a few combos will fold properly to make a functional protein, not just another purposelessÃ‚Â  variation.

I could not find the equation, but Baumgardner says that this number is actually greater than the number of possible chemical reactions that could ever take place in the universe.Ã‚Â  If you need the link I could try to find it.

HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the thing AFJ,

The atheist will complain loudly about the mathematician and logician using statistical probabilities to disprove and totally destroy Abiogenesis, then Tkubok comes in and attempts to use it to prove that it Abiogenesis can only happen once!

There is more humor in that than 1.35 million to the second power Rodney Dangerfield one liners (DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t worry, some of you will get thatÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Some wont).

#28 Tkubok

Tkubok

Junior Member

• Advanced member
• 72 posts
• Age: 24
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Canada

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:04 AM

Okay, here you are attempting to equate the statistical variances of something (in this case dice) as an attribute for (or supporting) Abiogenesis (atheists usually attempt to disprove this concept. So I thank you for using it).  And if you want to go that route, we can, and further expound on it to prove AbiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ improbability of happening in the first place (see Sir Fredric Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe). And from that point you will get yourself in a statistical bind as well as logical, rational and scientific conundrum.

I suppose this wouldve been a better example now that i think of it, because it more easily demonstrates what im saying, although the jist is the same.

I have a deck of cards, and i shuffle the deck randomly, and hand out the cards for a game of Blackjack to three people. We play until the deck runs out, and while we do it, record all the cards we got, in turn.

Now, after this is complete, we can easily replicate this game, if we stacked the deck and if we all folded and hit at the same time in the game as we did before. If all the circumstances are the same, our second game will be EXACTLY as the first game proceeded, with each player winning, losing, folding and hitting at the exact same time, relative to the game.

However, for us to randomly, through chance, have the same card game, is a statistical improbability, for the most part.

But heres the problem. If it happened before, why couldn't it happen again? If we know the variables, if we know the circumstances, we can easily replicate the game, perfectly. Yet it seems as though we are unable to see the same game occur twice, naturally. Not just in one night, but in one lifetime, maybe more.

And thats pretty much what abiogenesis is, or currently is, atleast. Well probably be talking more about this as the thread goes on, so ill leave it at that.

First, you are assuming a Ã¢â‚¬Å“proto-EarthÃ¢â‚¬Â condition, but that is nothing more than pure speculation at best. And I have no problem with your placing your faith statements here.

Sure. I have no problem with that.

Second, Ã¢â‚¬Å“IFÃ¢â‚¬Â abiogenesis even had the possibility to happen in the first place (which is Ã¢â‚¬Å“statisticallyÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“logicallyÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“rationallyÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“scientificallyÃ¢â‚¬Â impossible), then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again; because Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“IfÃ¢â‚¬Â the Ã¢â‚¬Å“ConditionsÃ¢â‚¬Â for abiogenesis to happen were even possible, then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again!

Just as an FFP, you dont have to put an "IF" qualifier in capitals and quotes, i know your position and i wont quotemine you on that or anything. Just saying.

But, again, i couldnt agree with you more. "IF" abiogenesis is true, then "IF" the same circumstances came rolling around again, then Abiogenesis should happen. I couldnt agree with you more.

So, this brings me back to one of my previous questions. Has a proto-earth condition that matches the old earth, with the circumstances being replicated, ever existed on earth, in the past, say, 5000 years?

No, you are incorrect. My beef with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheistic evolutionaryÃ¢â‚¬Â definition of speciation, is that it is so fluid, so as to prove evolution in the first place. In other words, atheistic evolutionists use a flexible definition to support their beliefs in evolution.

Oh, sorry. The other guys were talking about what they thought you believed, so i had to make sure if this was infact what you believed.

But can i ask for an explanation as to why the definition, you believe, is flexible? Or atleast, made flexible by evolutionists.

And, further, none of this goes to the OP question:
And you have really failed to adequately address any of it (as weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll see further below).

I thought it did. But anyways...

And again, you stray from the points:
Your dialogue further makes my point. You attempt to paint humans and animals with the same brush, but you cannot (or will not?) show any evidence of any other creature that has achieved even the minutest fraction of what man has done. All youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve really done is go on about how manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intelligence is the difference. And to this I agree!!! But, it in no way refutes my points. All it really does is support what I maintain.

If thats all your point entails, then i couldnt agree more. But that doesnt prevent us from expanding on the reason why you made that point. Which is why I mentioned the attributes of other animals.

#29 Tkubok

Tkubok

Junior Member

• Advanced member
• 72 posts
• Age: 24
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Canada

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:18 AM

I don't agree with him on this point - and I think if he were honest with himself he would agree that the intelligence of humans is qualitatively better (quite significantly) than the unique abilities of other animals.  Even if you only look at it from a survivalist standpoint, the intelligence of humans gives us the upper hand over other creatures.

I don't know if Tkubok has children, but if he supposes that all traits are qualitatively equal - I wonder if he would be satisfied if his child grew up to be the best rock thrower in the world yet never learned to speak, walk, read, or wipe his nose (assuming he had the mental capabilities to learn these things).

No, not at all. I agree that Intelligence is, atleast in certain values, better than the abilities of other animals. But this is all speaking from a human beings point of view, as i happen to be one.

There is nothing wrong with placing a specific value on something. I do it all the time, we all do. The problem arises when we confuse our values, for the values of others. In terms of survivability, and usefullness and a bunch of other values, Human intelligence is pretty high up on the ranking list. But if i were a whale, i would probably be thinking to myself, what a great life i have. All i have to do is float around eating plankton. And if a meteor hits the earth and wipes out all the land animals, well, clearly it was superior to being able to near-permanently stay in water. And thats sorta my point.

Although your children analogy is slightly misconstrued, as humans dont have the capability to run 70 MpH nor does a dog have the capability to solve complex math equations, If my chlid was otherwise incapabale of doing anything else than rock throwing, as a parent, i think i would be proud, and satisfied that atleast my child can do something.

But then again, im not a parent. So yeah.

#30 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1,625 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Baton Rouge, LA
• Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
• Age: 51
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:33 AM

I suppose this wouldve been a better example now that i think of it, because it more easily demonstrates what im saying, although the jist is the same.

I have a deck of cards, and i shuffle the deck randomly, and hand out the cards for a game of Blackjack to three people. We play until the deck runs out, and while we do it, record all the cards we got, in turn.

Now, after this is complete, we can easily replicate this game, if we stacked the deck and if we all folded and hit at the same time in the game as we did before. If all the circumstances are the same, our second game will be EXACTLY as the first game proceeded, with each player winning, losing, folding and hitting at the exact same time, relative to the game.

However, for us to randomly, through chance, have the same card game, is a statistical improbability, for the most part.

But heres the problem. If it happened before, why couldn't it happen again?

Thubok,
I do have to give you an A for effort. Of course, the improbability of the above scenario requires that it will never happen again. You could find the number of possibilities, and I think it is safe to say the magnitude would be so high, it would never happen twice in 4.5 billion years, or even the 15 billion years that the universe supposedly has existed.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets talk about the protein scenario again. Let's say one fluke 150 amino acid protein folded successfully in random circumstances, defying the 1:20^150 probability (1 functional protein: number of biological amino acids ^ number of amino acids in the peptide chain). Unless you can construct life with one type of protein, AND IF this protein binds with itself, then you still have no life.

The point is that the extremely improbable would have to happen multiple times WITHIN a short time frame, before the other proteins and macromolecules began to suffer hydrolysis or denaturing. Keep in mind, that until the means of reproduction takes place, all this would have to take place randomly, with each step going against astronomical improbabilities.

It would be like saying the card game happened exactly the same way multiple times within days.

#31 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:00 AM

I suppose this wouldve been a better example now that i think of it, because it more easily demonstrates what im saying, although the jist is the same.
I have a deck of cards, and i shuffle the deck randomly, and hand out the cards for a game of Blackjack to three people. We play until the deck runs out, and while we do it, record all the cards we got, in turn.
Now, after this is complete, we can easily replicate this game, if we stacked the deck and if we all folded and hit at the same time in the game as we did before. If all the circumstances are the same, our second game will be EXACTLY as the first game proceeded, with each player winning, losing, folding and hitting at the exact same time, relative to the game.
However, for us to randomly, through chance, have the same card game, is a statistical improbability, for the most part.
But heres the problem. If it happened before, why couldn't it happen again? If we know the variables, if we know the circumstances, we can easily replicate the game, perfectly. Yet it seems as though we are unable to see the same game occur twice, naturally. Not just in one night, but in one lifetime, maybe more.
And thats pretty much what abiogenesis is, or currently is, atleast. Well probably be talking more about this as the thread goes on, so ill leave it at that.

The issue here is that you are ending up with the exact same problem, whether you use cards, dice, spotted eggs, or whatever. The probability of abiogenesis happening in the first place is so astronomically remote, that it is rendered statistically impossible by any standard. Further, there is absolutely no logical, rational or scientific evidence to support life from non-life, let alone intelligence from non-intelligence! Therefore you cannot see the Ã¢â‚¬Å“game occurÃ¢â‚¬Â the first time. BUTÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ If it could; there is absolutely NO reason to believe that it couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen again and again. And you have provided absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise in either case.

I doubt weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll continue on with this part of the conversation, unless you can:

First, provide solid evidence for abiogenesis.

Second, provide solid evidence that something that something occurring once, cannot happen repeatedly.

Somehow I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you can get beyond the hypothesis (or simply saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so) stage. And, further sidetracking of the OP with frivolous and unsubstantiated (maybe hyperbole and or equivocation?) postulates will be curtailed. You can always open a separate thread to ponder the impossible I suppose.

Just as an FFP, you dont have to put an "IF" qualifier in capitals and quotes, i know your position and i wont quotemine you on that or anything. Just saying.

Actually, yes I do. That way I ensure the point get across, and there is no future misunderstanding.

But, again, i couldnt agree with you more. "IF" abiogenesis is true, then "IF" the same circumstances came rolling around again, then Abiogenesis should happen. I couldnt agree with you more.

So, how many times have the same circumstances occurred? Better yet, did they even happen in the first place?

The problem (as stated previously) isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that the position supports abiogenesis (and the impossibility thereof), but that -"IF" the same circumstances came rolling around again, then Abiogenesis should happen- over and over. Just as the logical statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“if man can evolve to so Ã¢â‚¬Å“superiorÃ¢â‚¬Â a degree, than Ã¢â‚¬Å“ManyÃ¢â‚¬Â other animals should have as well.

Further: There is absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis, repeated abiogenesis, evolution of superior intelligence, or repeated evolution of superior intelligence. And this puts a major crimp in the model of macro-evolution.

So, this brings me back to one of my previous questions. Has a proto-earth condition that matches the old earth, with the circumstances being replicated, ever existed on earth, in the past, say, 5000 years?

What are your empirical evidences for your version of Ã¢â‚¬Å“proto-earthÃ¢â‚¬Â conditions in the first place?

But can i ask for an explanation as to why the definition, you believe, is flexible? Or atleast, made flexible by evolutionists.

I already explained that. It is made flexible so as to conform to whatever supports macro-evolution Ã¢â‚¬Å“du-jourÃ¢â‚¬Â.

If thats all your point entails, then i couldnt agree more. But that doesnt prevent us from expanding on the reason why you made that point. Which is why I mentioned the attributes of other animals.

Actually, yes it does. Why, because it stray far from the OP! It is nothing more than a rabbit trail one wanders down because no good refutation has been adduced to rebut the points of the OP. So here, we will drag it back on topic!

You have provided absolutely no good explanation as to why Man is the only creature to have Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolvedÃ¢â‚¬Â so superior and intellect and abilities! It flies in the face of macro-evolutionary ponderings (thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s right, I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say evidences; because there arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t any). This lays waste to macro-evolution, and renders it illogical.

#32 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:13 AM

No, not at all. I agree that Intelligence is, atleast in certain values, better than the abilities of other animals. But this is all speaking from a human beings point of view, as i hapnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢pen to be one.

I see youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re still attempting to restrict the superiority of Man to intelligence. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fine, but it is far less than you need to do to rebut the assertion; especially due to the massive amounts of evidence to support that assertion. Therefore IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to cut out all your fluff, set aside all the other evidences that prove ManÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s superiority, and take it to a concise point, so as to disallow your wiggle room:

After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only Ã¢â‚¬Å“ManÃ¢â‚¬Â would have (supposedly) evolved superior intelligence? Why has there been NO other creature(s) to Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â superior intelligence.

I have provided numerous facts to support ManÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s superiority. And it wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even close to being exhaustive. Therefore you will be allowed NO fluff, NO equivocation, NO quibblingÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Just facts!

#33 Tkubok

Tkubok

Junior Member

• Advanced member
• 72 posts
• Age: 24
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Canada

Posted 15 December 2010 - 10:03 AM

We had a similar illustration the other day.  Is this what they are saying in university now in an attempt to nullify the fact of probability in random protein synthesis.

Your illustration is quite valid, but it is valid only for the scenario given.  You can't compare it to random protein synthesis. The problem is that no matter what magnitude the different angles, combinations, etc. come up to, none of them have any purpose or significance, except that they are different.  So if I roll the five dice again, it's combination and configuration has a probability  of equal magnitude.  Say there are 10 ^ 20 combinations and configurations of the dice.  None of them would do anything significant, and all of them would have a probability of 1:10^20.

The difference is that in a random chemical bonding of a specific functional 150 amino acid peptide chain, there are only a few combinations out of 20^150 combinations that will fold and function properly.  Thats 20x20x20x20x20.... 150 times.  Now 10^150 is 1 followed by 150 zeros.  But 20 to a magnitude is eponentially greater than 10 to a magnitude.  For instance 10^2=100 ; 20^2=400 4 times  greater.  10^3=1000; 20^3=8000 8 times greater.  10^4=10000; 20^4=160000 16 times greater.  10^5=100,000, but 20^2 is 400 and 20^5=3.2 million  32 times greater.

So can you imagine how much greater  20^150 is than 10^150?!!

A 1 with 150 zeros is unimaginable, but the number of zeros for 20^150 would be exponential from the zeros of 10^150.  And unlike the dice, a few combos will fold properly to make a functional protein, not just another purposeless  variation.

I could not find the equation, but Baumgardner says that this number is actually greater than the number of possible chemical reactions that could ever take place in the universe.  If you need the link I could try to find it.

Here's the thing, AFJ.

The problem with this is evident for most mathematics teachers in under a minute. Without knowledge of all the variables, you cannot accurately produce the statistics, nor can you determine how accurate your conclusions are. Baumgardner ignores the variables such as the actual necessary length of an amino acid which is required for the most basics lifeform to exist(something that elludes even biologists, so how Baumgardner could now this is beyond me), or the fact that biochemistry necessitates that complex molecules follow an arranged set of configurations based on the electron configurations, and that biochemistry also necessitates the production of complex molecules from simple ones due to mere interactions of more than one organic molecules. But let's ignore that for a second.

Statistical probabilities are utterly meaningless in science. And here's why.

Statistical thermodynamics is probably the field that addresses this problem best. In any system that contains a large amount of molecules, ANY state within that system is equally statistically impossible. However, since that system must exist in a state, regardless of possibility, this basically throws out the calculation of a single state in that system exclusive of any other state.

And what is more absurd, is when you calculate that state as a goal. This is probably more easily demonstrated with an example. If I hand out 13 cards for a game of bridge, the odds of you getting all 13 cards the same suit, is around 1 in 600 trillion. You would have to play 600 trillion games, and get on average, one hand with the same suit.

But what are the chances of getting a hand with 13 random cards made up of different numbers, suits, etc? 1 in 600 trillion! Its the same odds no matter what hand you get. Only if you look at the hand as a goal, could you conclude it was impossibel to get on your first try, let alone the next 100 games, yet any hand is beating the odds, statistically speaking. As I said before, we don't know the requirements for how long a proto-cell amino acid chain is, which means that we can't determine what the goal is i n the first place. Combine that with the fact that the amino acids must be configured in some state, and that this is occuring on a billion states at once, much like a beaker of HCL and NaOH have billions of molecules interacting with each other(and that's just a small beaker) every second, and your argument gets that much smaller.

#34 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 10:20 AM

Without knowledge of all the variables, you cannot accurately produce the statistics, nor can you determine how accurate your conclusions are.

The above is exactly why atheistic evolution is a myth! And is why their views on the subject are heavily laden with faith statements.

The atheist has absolutely no idea of Ã¢â‚¬Å“all the variablesÃ¢â‚¬Â prior to recorded history (pre-historic), and yet most atheists pretend macro-evolution is a fact.

#35 Tkubok

Tkubok

Junior Member

• Advanced member
• 72 posts
• Age: 24
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Canada

Posted 15 December 2010 - 10:52 AM

The issue here is that you are ending up with the exact same problem, whether you use cards, dice, spotted eggs, or whatever.  The probability of abiogenesis happening in the first place is so astronomically remote, that it is rendered statistically impossible by any standard. Further, there is absolutely no logical, rational or scientific evidence to support life from non-life, let alone intelligence from non-intelligence! Therefore you cannot see the Ã¢â‚¬Å“game occurÃ¢â‚¬Â the first time. BUTÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ If it could; there is absolutely NO reason to believe that it couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen again and again. And you have provided absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise in either case.

I doubt weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll continue on with this part of the conversation, unless you can:

First, provide solid evidence for abiogenesis.

Second, provide solid evidence that something that something occurring once, cannot happen repeatedly.

Somehow I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you can get beyond the hypothesis (or simply saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so) stage.  And, further sidetracking of the OP with frivolous and unsubstantiated (maybe hyperbole and or equivocation?) postulates will be curtailed. You can always open a separate thread to ponder the impossible I suppose.

Actually, my original contention regarding the OP wasn't "there is evidence to support abiogenesis", but only the problem of "why hasn't it happened over and over?"

In regards to evidence, I agree, abiogenesis is still a growing field(there is no single theory or even hypothesis regarding abiogenesis), and we still have a many ways to go, both evidence-wise and the actual mechanisms. But the reason we call it a theory, is simply a place holder for addressing the origins of life. We understand that an answer exists, and the word "theory of abiogenesis" is a simple place holder for that answer.

As to the second point, as I said before, no scientist is claiming that this cannot happen again. So I don't know how I can produce evidence against a claim.

So, how many times have the same circumstances occurred? Better yet, did they even happen in the first place?

The problem (as stated previously) isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that the position supports abiogenesis (and the impossibility thereof), but that  -"IF" the same circumstances came rolling around again, then Abiogenesis should happen- over and over. Just as the logical statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“if man can evolve to so Ã¢â‚¬Å“superiorÃ¢â‚¬Â a degree, than Ã¢â‚¬Å“ManyÃ¢â‚¬Â other animals should have as well.

Again, we don't know what the exact circumstances were, therefore we don't know if they have infact happened. All we have is the evidence as to roughly when abiogenesis must have occurred, and the evidence regarding what a primitive atmosphere would entail in proto-earth conditions.

But the "if" presented in that statement, effecctively negates the point of contention I had in the OP. If we don't even know what the early conditions were, then how could evolutionists claim that it MUST be occuring today?

What are your empirical evidences for your version of Ã¢â‚¬Å“proto-earthÃ¢â‚¬Â conditions in the first place?

Quite a bit. The Ircon in the early layers show evidence of contact with liquid water, so we know there was water as far back as 4 billion years. We know oxygen was low, because the iron bands in the layers only contain iron oxide from 2 billion years onward, whereas grains like pyrite which are not stable for long in rich oxygen atmospheres were found before 2 billion years. We know there was a lot of impact from outer meteorites and comets, which provide methane and other elements.

I already explained that. It is made flexible so as to conform to whatever supports macro-evolution Ã¢â‚¬Å“du-jourÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Could you provide an example? Like, maybe a dialogue where you encountered this?

Actually, yes it does. Why, because it stray far from the OP! It is nothing more than a rabbit trail one wanders down because no good refutation has been adduced to rebut the points of the OP. So here, we will drag it back on topic!

I agree, we've strayed off topic in some areas, but in regards to my contention with the OP, I don't think. We strayed there.

You have provided absolutely no good explanation as to why Man is the only creature to have Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolvedÃ¢â‚¬Â so superior and intellect and abilities! It flies in the face of macro-evolutionary ponderings (thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s right, I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say evidences; because there arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t any). This lays waste to macro-evolution, and renders it illogical.

Well, actually I did. My response was that humans didn't develop "multiple" abilities, humans developed one, that is, intelligence. As to why its superior, I suggest you read my response to air-run regarding that. I'm typing this on my phone right now and don't want to retype it.

#36 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1,625 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Baton Rouge, LA
• Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
• Age: 51
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 11:00 AM

Without knowledge of all the variables, you cannot accurately produce the statistics, nor can you determine how accurate your conclusions are.

The above is exactly why atheistic evolution is a myth! And is why their views on the subject are heavily laden with faith statements.

The atheist has absolutely no idea of Ã¢â‚¬Å“all the variablesÃ¢â‚¬Â prior to recorded history (pre-historic), and yet most atheists pretend macro-evolution is a fact.

Thubok,
I don't understand how you arrived at your statement. We can make reasonable assumptions which would create conditions for hypothetical random protein synthesis.

1. We have only the 20 organic amino acids (that we are made up of) within a reasonable vicinity of each other at the same time.

2. An advantageous medium that would encourage dehydration sythesis, so that the polypeptide chain would begin to bond spontaneously in the medium.

3. Any other means necessary that would not hinder chemical reaction, nor increase the conditions for denaturing, nor hydrolysis .

You will still have for a 150 amino acid peptide 20 ^ 150 possible combinations. This equals 1.427248e+195 (that's 195 zeros). exponents calculator

You can say what you want, but that is the number of combinations for a 150 aa chain, using the 20 organic amino acids. There is no other way around it. Unless you want to use intelligent guidance.

#37 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 11:55 AM

Actually, my original contention regarding the OP wasn't "there is evidence to support biogenesis", but only the problem of "why hasn't it happened over and over?"

The problem is, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make a good case as to why abiogenesis hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happened over and over. I added the caveat of Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypothesized abiogenesis realityÃ¢â‚¬Â to further pull apart your hypothesis. You still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t gotten past either of them. In fact, you are attempting to use the probability argument that the majority of atheistic evolutionists fight against (tooth and nail). The difference is, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re attempting to use it in reverse. And its use on your part is illogical.

The bottom line on this is Ã¢â‚¬Å“if something happens, it has the ability to continue happening over and overÃ¢â‚¬Â!

But in the case of abiogenesis AND the macro evolution of intelligence, this just isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the case. And, all youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve done so far is equivocate and prevaricate on the subject. You havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provided one shread of evidence to back up your claim.

In regards to evidence, I agree, abiogenesis is still a growing field(there is no single theory or even hypothesis regarding abiogenesis), and we still have a many ways to go, both evidence-wise and the actual mechanisms. But the reason we call it a theory, is simply a place holder for addressing the origins of life. We understand that an answer exists, and the word "theory of abiogenesis" is a simple place holder for that answer.

Abiogenesis isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a growing field, its an illogical fairytale that is faith based and nothing more. It is not a theory; it is nothing more than a model of a hypothesis with no basis in reality. The problem is, atheistic evolutionists want it to be true so badly, that they attempt to tag it with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“theoryÃ¢â‚¬Â label (as you are attempting above).

As to the second point, as I said before, no scientist is claiming that this cannot happen again. So I don't know how I can produce evidence against a claim.

That is the whole point (that you are also failing to grasp/understand/ reconcile! You cannot produce any evidence for either one; therefore you are stuck with your equivocations and prevarications on the subject, instead of acknowledging the truth of the statement!

Again, we don't know what the exact circumstances were, therefore we don't know if they have infact happened. All we have is the evidence as to roughly when abiogenesis must have occurred, and the evidence regarding what a primitive atmosphere would entail in proto-earth conditions.

You Ã¢â‚¬Å“donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know what the exact circumstancesÃ¢â‚¬Â were? My friend, you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know what any of the circumstances were! Therefore, you are correct in stating that you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know if they Ã¢â‚¬Å“in factÃ¢â‚¬Â happened! Further, you have absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis, let alone when it Ã¢â‚¬Å“might have occurredÃ¢â‚¬Â. Abiogenesis is illogical (irrational and unscientific) for many reasons; therefore Ã¢â‚¬Å“abiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬Â is nothing more than a faith-based myth at best! So your hypothesis on the primitive atmosphere of proto-earth conditions is moot!

And, if you re-read the paragraph that I just rebutted, you see a prime example of an atheistic evolutionists faith statements.

Well, actually I did. My response was that humans didn't develop "multiple" abilities, humans developed one, that is, intelligence.

No, actually, you did notÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Humans have many abilities that no other creatures have. Humans have the further ability to improve upon, and make superior, the abilities of all other creatures.

As to why its superior, I suggest you read my response to air-run regarding that. I'm typing this on my phone right now and don't want to retype it.

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have to provide the link/post number where you replied to Air-run in this thread.

#38 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1,625 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Baton Rouge, LA
• Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
• Age: 51
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 04:15 PM

The problem is, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make a good case as to why abiogenesis hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happened over and over. I added the caveat of Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypothesized abiogenesis realityÃ¢â‚¬Â to further pull apart your hypothesis.Ã‚Â  You still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t gotten past either of them. In fact, you are attempting to use the probability argument that the majority of atheistic evolutionists fight against (tooth and nail). The difference is, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re attempting to use it in reverse. And its use on your part is illogical.

The bottom line on this is Ã¢â‚¬Å“if something happens, it has the ability to continue happening over and overÃ¢â‚¬Â!

Hey Ron,

It's kind of ironic that the evos would use a probability arguement when even one protein is easily shown to be a number of 10 ^ -195. Each roll of even twenty dice is a PURPOSELESS COMBINATION, and will happen once in "eternity."

I also have a point that has not been answered, and never has been, when the evos use this kind of illustration. It is that EVEN IF one protein was randomly synthesized, you have to have many proteins to make life, and if there is no means of enzymatic sythesis, then the "mud puddle and lighting" scenario is all they got.

If there are 10 ^ 195 combinations for the concerned functional protein, then there can be (10 ^ 195) - 1 different variations that won't work. That's why the dice are a terrible example. No roll of the dice will do anything, except be different. So it's irrelavent if one roll happens that will never happen again--it just shows how ABIOGENESIS or one fluke randomly synthesized protein could never happen again.

#39 Ron

Ron

Advanced Member

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 December 2010 - 05:12 AM

Hey Ron,

It's kind of ironic that the evos would use a probability arguement when even one protein is easily shown to be a number of 10 ^ -195.  Each roll of even twenty dice is a PURPOSELESS COMBINATION, and will happen once in "eternity."

I also have  a point that has not been answered, and never has been, when the evos use this kind of illustration.  It is that EVEN IF one protein was randomly synthesized, you have to have many proteins to make life, and if there is no means of enzymatic sythesis, then the "mud puddle and lighting" scenario is all they got.

If there are 10 ^ 195 combinations for the concerned functional protein, then there can be (10 ^ 195) - 1 different variations that won't work.  That's why the dice are a terrible example. No roll of the dice will do anything, except be different.  So it's irrelavent if one roll happens that will never happen again--it just shows how ABIOGENESIS or one fluke randomly synthesized protein could never happen again.

AFJ,

If I can't get an honest answer to the OP, how do you expect to get an honest answer to a question like that? All I get in return is beating around the bush, equivocation (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦).

No straight up, honest, open answers!

#40 WalterK

WalterK

Junior Member

• Banned
• 33 posts
• Age: 43
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Alberta

Posted 16 December 2010 - 11:55 AM

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean Ã¢â‚¬Å“MacroÃ¢â‚¬Â evolution):

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalÃ¢â‚¬Â chemical reactions.

As Air-Run says, if a complex self-replicating molecular process emerged in the wild it would be devoured by extant life. It is an area of on-going lab research.

Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidencesÃ¢â‚¬Â for this is presupposed and contrived.

What are the unjustified presuppositions behind biogeography and the observed tree of life?

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only Ã¢â‚¬Å“ManÃ¢â‚¬Â would have a historical record of achievement !

That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical,

Why should it be illogical for humans to be the most cognitively developed species?

and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of Ã¢â‚¬Å“MythÃ¢â‚¬Â.

How does this follow?

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users