A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection).

1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design?
3. How did the DNA code originate?
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
8. How did multi-cellular life originate?
9. How did sex originate?
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing?
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: Answer my

jackspell wrote:
 Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

Because your lotto question is irrelevant and stupid, but if it will make you happy- If you are the operations manager and you play the lotto you are by definition cheating regardless of whether or not you win. All lotteries have rules that specifically state employees cannot play the lottery and often that is extended to close family members or anyone living in the same household. So to play you are breaking the rules, and therefore cheating.

 

Now suppose you weren't an employee, just some random person who wins 5 times- most likely you just got really lucky. Cheating is certainly possible, but pretty stupid to cheat multiple times because the odds of getting caught and losing everything increase. Such unlikely occurrences can happen. Joan Ginther overcame great odds to win the Texas lotto four times. http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2010-07-13-lottery-winner-texas_N.htm

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know. 2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

1. Then why did you waste time with your "bottom line" bull? 

2. I don't need to prove there is no God as I do not and have not made that claim. Keep your straw man of atheism out of this. Thanks.

3. Link to what? That we have transitional fossils? Check out talkorigins.org (search the archive for "transitional fossils&quotEye-wink.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 


A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)


The Big-bang


Density-of-matter in the Big-bang


The inflationary Big-bang


Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang


The Strong Force


Gravity


Electrons & Protons


Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry


Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness


The big-bang (reprise)


The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

 

Direct material proof of god, please, or admit your assumption. 

 

The most generous allowance of probabilistic resources comes from Dembski's Universal Probability Bound. It totals 10^150. Mathematicians will tell you anything that has a degree of improbability exceeding this is considered non-existent. So this proves mathematically it is impossible to not have an intelligent designer. Checkmate.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:jackspell

jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 


A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)


The Big-bang


Density-of-matter in the Big-bang


The inflationary Big-bang


Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang


The Strong Force


Gravity


Electrons & Protons


Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry


Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness


The big-bang (reprise)


The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

Can you tell me what any of this means or do you just have faith that you are ripping off the right people?

I could tell you what every bit of it means. Unfortunately for you, you lack the mental capacity to comprehend the indisputable implications. Wait! Good news, I just downloaded an app that converts common sense propositions, to simpler translations even an atheist can understand. NATURALISM IS IRRATIONAL.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Appeal to ignorance, Jack.

 

jackspell wrote:
 

2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

 

Direct proof of god please or admit that, like us, you have no data supporting any specific hypothetical external first cause. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
DP

 

Excuse. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know. 2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

1. Then why did you waste the time with your "bottom line" bat squeeze?

2a. Never said anything about disproving God, son. I just gave you what you needed to find so you could disprove evolution. Are you saying you can't?

2b. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist. I didn't make a claim about God. Keep your straw man of atheism away fro me. Thanks.

3. Check talkorigins.org for transitional forms

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know. 2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

1. Then why did you waste the time with your "bottom line" bat squeeze?

2a. Never said anything about disproving God, son. I just gave you what you needed to find so you could disprove evolution. Are you saying you can't?

2b. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist. I didn't make a claim about God. Keep your straw man of atheism away fro me. Thanks.

3. Google transitional fossils.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Still no direct proof of a god

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

 


A few of the Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-Tuning the Universe)


The Big-bang


Density-of-matter in the Big-bang


The inflationary Big-bang


Lambda in the inflationary Big-bang


The Strong Force


Gravity


Electrons & Protons


Carbon Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance had to be created for formation of carbon (via alpha particle collision with Beryllium-8) and then tuned to close to a specific energy, to enable a brief window of opportunity for formation of carbon.
  • Without this, there would be negligible carbon in the universe.
  • Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life (silicon for instance forms much shorter and less versatile chains that are not specified-complex enough).

Oxygen Resonance

  • A nuclear resonance for formation of oxygen had to be tuned to prevent complete cannibalization of carbon (via alpha-particle collision with carbon, resulting in oxygen).
  • If the oxygen-resonance were half a percent higher, there would be negligible carbon in the universe and on earth. Carbon is the only element designed to be capable of forming the long molecular-chains necessary for the complexity required by life.

Particle masses

  • Proton, neutron and electron masses had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • For instance, free neutrons decay to form protons. If the proton mass were slightly higher, the opposite would happen, resulting in a universe full of neutronium.
  • There would be no elements (no hydrogen, oxygen, carbon) and no way to create the molecular-complexity required for life.

Weak Nuclear Force

  • The weak-nuclear force had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • Slightly stronger, and no helium or heavier elements would form. And there would be no means to create the molecular-complexity required for life.
  • Slightly weaker, and no hydrogen would remain (to provide fuel for steady-burning stars needed as sources of energy for life).
  • Also, supernova explosions would not be able to disperse the medium-to-heavy elements created in stars.
  • Elements such as carbon (for molecular chains basic to life), iron (for hemoglobin), copper and other elements used in life-forms were originally created in stars, then dispersed by supernova explosions, to finally reach/coalesce into earth…

Dimensions

  • The number of dimensions in our universe had to be fine-tuned to enable life.
  • The topological, and physical laws of the universe need more than two spatial-dimensions, and less than five extended-dimensions for stability and the complexity required for life…
  • This requirement is met in our universe, with 3 extended spatial-dimensions and 1 temporal dimension.

Carbon chemistry


Cosmological Flatness

  • Lee Smolin (physicist) estimates the epistemic-probability for the "equivalent-temperature" of the universe being such as to enable cosmological flatness, to be one part in 10^32.
  • Epistemic Probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 01

Quantum Gravity & Cosmological Flatness


The big-bang (reprise)


The list grows

  • The list (above) is by no means an exhaustive list of the Anthropic coincidences. There are many more such coincidences in the literature.
  • As I have mentioned, these Anthropic coincidences (and the need for them) are a very unexpected turn of events, as I consider an Atheistic Universe…
  • The Anthropic Coincidences were one set of evidence that pointed me away from Atheism and towards an Intelligent Designer of the Universe (i.e., God).

 

Can you tell me what any of this means or do you just have faith that you are ripping off the right people?

I could tell you what every bit of it means. Unfortunately for you, you lack the mental capacity to comprehend the indisputable implications. Wait! Good news, I just downloaded an app that converts common sense propositions, to simpler translations even an atheist can understand. NATURALISM IS IRRATIONAL.

 

from you, Jack.

Instead a huge list of numbers that apply just as equably to your hypothetical external first cause as they do to the universe. Probability theories are subjective. Bayesian theory demands a personal application of positive outcome values and it relies entirely on our experience on this planet in this universe - this creates an intrinsic sense of 'likelihood' which amounts to motivated reasoning.

We cannot see other universes. We have no comparable data. We did not see the formation of this universe. It's not as if we can say 9 of 10 universes do not support carbon-based life which terraforms its planets in the presence of particular biochemical and external energy-rich conditions.

And it's my opinion your probability theory's skeleton is a latent and pervasive false dichotomy. Either a personal supernatural god made the universe and ignited and designed all life, or it happened entirely by chance. But you cannot press either point in the complete absence of supporting data. You must admit that, like us, you have no data to support your hypothetical external first cause. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: Answer my

jackspell wrote:
Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

Which lotto question, pookie?  Who could find it in that wall of junk you posted?

I'll guess - you don't have a clue about how evolution works, so you are spouting the usual creationist nonsense.

Evolution works like this -

I buy a ticket.  Every time a drawing is made, I get to keep the winning numbers and change the losing numbers. 

How long do you think it would take me to match all the numbers?  A googleplex of years?  Naw, it would depend on how many numbers I was trying to match, but it would be no where near the number of years if I were playing a real lottery.

For the mathematically challenged -

Let's pretend that is a valid game to pick 5 numbers.

I pick - oh - 4 6 7 48 21 

And this week the winning numbers are - 1 18 23 48 49

I get to keep 48 and I buy new numbers (randomly) 2 12 34 49, keeping my 48

And now I have 48 and 49 and I get to pick 3 new numbers.

See?  The odds are much smaller and the time to win way less than infinite.

That is how evolution works, it keeps what works and discards what doesn't.  No, it is definitely not like a tornado in a junk yard putting together a fighter jet - another really lame creationist analogy.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible.  

1 - how big is the glass? If the glass was the size of a sub-atomic particle then no, there aren't as many as all the water in all the oceans.

2 - "scattered throughout an area", please define an area as compared to what unit of measurement?

3 - If your area is the width of a sub-atomic particle then no, it wouldn't take a beam of light 93 million years to travel across it.

Please.. this is why you should not cut and paste stuff that isn't your own thoughts.

 

Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

Highly improbable does not mean impossible, for example the chance of winning the lottery is 1 in 28 million, or once every 132,000 years give or take a few centuries. Now that chances of winning the lottery twice in your lifetimes, is 1 in 56 million or once every 265,000 years.....what do you think odds of winning the lotter 2 times within 2 months? the odds are very very small, it's actually in the 1 in a trillion chance.....guess what, it has happened,just because something is HIGHLY improbable does not mean it is impossible. Learn the difference.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Then why

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Then why did you waste the time with your "bottom line" bat squeeze?

 

2a. Never said anything about disproving God, son. I just gave you what you needed to find so you could disprove evolution. Are you saying you can't?

2b. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist. I didn't make a claim about God. Keep your straw man of atheism away fro me. Thanks.

3. Check talkorigins.org for transitional forms

 

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
cj!!!!!

cj wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

Which lotto question, pookie?  Who could find it in that wall of junk you posted?

I'll guess - you don't have a clue about how evolution works, so you are spouting the usual creationist nonsense.

Evolution works like this -

I buy a ticket.  Every time a drawing is made, I get to keep the winning numbers and change the losing numbers. 

How long do you think it would take me to match all the numbers?  A googleplex of years?  Naw, it would depend on how many numbers I was trying to match, but it would be no where near the number of years if I were playing a real lottery.

For the mathematically challenged -

Let's pretend that is a valid game to pick 5 numbers.

I pick - oh - 4 6 7 48 21 

And this week the winning numbers are - 1 18 23 48 49

I get to keep 48 and I buy new numbers (randomly) 2 12 34 49, keeping my 48

And now I have 48 and 49 and I get to pick 3 new numbers.

See?  The odds are much smaller and the time to win way less than infinite.

That is how evolution works, it keeps what works and discards what doesn't.  No, it is definitely not like a tornado in a junk yard putting together a fighter jet - another really lame creationist analogy.

 

 

 

How are you? I hope well. We've missed you, nice to see you and so forth. Hope all well on the you front. 

Sorry to be effusive. I've been to lunch. Wine, warm sun, pleasant arguments...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Then why did you waste the time with your "bottom line" bat squeeze?

 

2a. Never said anything about disproving God, son. I just gave you what you needed to find so you could disprove evolution. Are you saying you can't?

2b. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist. I didn't make a claim about God. Keep your straw man of atheism away fro me. Thanks.

3. Check talkorigins.org for transitional forms

 

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://transitionalfossils.com/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/transitional_def.html

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/transitionalfossils.htm

http://www.transitional-fossil.com/

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764

http://www.paleautonomy.com/taphonomy/transitional.html

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

 

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the drift.

Or maybe not.  It's formal name is "Doxastic Closure" also called "Epistemic Closure" - that is when your beliefs are so rooted in your self-justification that any evidence contrary to your belief just enforces your belief.  In other words, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you where it hurts.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Still no direct proof of a god

jackspell wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Then why did you waste the time with your "bottom line" bat squeeze?

 

2a. Never said anything about disproving God, son. I just gave you what you needed to find so you could disprove evolution. Are you saying you can't?

2b. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist. I didn't make a claim about God. Keep your straw man of atheism away fro me. Thanks.

3. Check talkorigins.org for transitional forms

 

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

 

 

Enough with appealing to authority. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:How

Atheistextremist wrote:

How are you? I hope well. We've missed you, nice to see you and so forth. Hope all well on the you front. 

Sorry to be effusive. I've been to lunch. Wine, warm sun, pleasant arguments...

 

Looks like straight A's this term.  As for your wine, warm sun, etc.......ppffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttt

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: jackspell wrote:

cj wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

Which lotto question, pookie?  Who could find it in that wall of junk you posted?

I'll guess - you don't have a clue about how evolution works, so you are spouting the usual creationist nonsense.

Evolution works like this -

I buy a ticket.  Every time a drawing is made, I get to keep the winning numbers and change the losing numbers. 

How long do you think it would take me to match all the numbers?  A googleplex of years?  Naw, it would depend on how many numbers I was trying to match, but it would be no where near the number of years if I were playing a real lottery.

For the mathematically challenged -

Let's pretend that is a valid game to pick 5 numbers.

I pick - oh - 4 6 7 48 21 

And this week the winning numbers are - 1 18 23 48 49

I get to keep 48 and I buy new numbers (randomly) 2 12 34 49, keeping my 48

And now I have 48 and 49 and I get to pick 3 new numbers.

See?  The odds are much smaller and the time to win way less than infinite.

That is how evolution works, it keeps what works and discards what doesn't.  No, it is definitely not like a tornado in a junk yard putting together a fighter jet - another really lame creationist analogy.

 

First, what is being optimized is a formal representation of meaning and function. A representation of any kind cannot be reduced to inanimate physicality. Second, “potential solutions” are formal, not merely physical entities. Third, at each iteration (generation) a certain portion of the population of potential solutions is deliberately selected by the agent experimenter (artificial selection) to “breed” a new generation. The optimized solution was purposefully pursued at each iteration. The overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal. Fourth, a formal fitness function is used to define and measure the fittest solutions thus far to a certain formal problem. The act of defining and measuring, along with just about everything else in the GA procedure, is altogether formal, not physical. How about you go and call the "atheist help desk" back to inform them that you aren't dealing with any ape descendants. Then drink some Vitamin Water, and try again.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Define how something becomes proven, scientifically.

Nothing is proven in science. Why do you not listen?

Are you incapable of learning?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:jackspell

latincanuck wrote:

jackspell wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible.  

1 - how big is the glass? If the glass was the size of a sub-atomic particle then no, there aren't as many as all the water in all the oceans.

2 - "scattered throughout an area", please define an area as compared to what unit of measurement?

3 - If your area is the width of a sub-atomic particle then no, it wouldn't take a beam of light 93 million years to travel across it.

Please.. this is why you should not cut and paste stuff that isn't your own thoughts.

 

Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

Highly improbable does not mean impossible, for example the chance of winning the lottery is 1 in 28 million, or once every 132,000 years give or take a few centuries. Now that chances of winning the lottery twice in your lifetimes, is 1 in 56 million or once every 265,000 years.....what do you think odds of winning the lotter 2 times within 2 months? the odds are very very small, it's actually in the 1 in a trillion chance.....guess what, it has happened,just because something is HIGHLY improbable does not mean it is impossible. Learn the difference.

Your math is worse than your failed refutation attempts of Christianity. First off, where the hell do you get 1 in 56 million? If you are trying to calculate the probability of mutually exclusive events, you multiply the probabilities, not add. But hey, I say you deserve a round of applause for adding correctly, even if it was the wrong operation. Moving on, if you were looking for the probability of winning twice, while only purchasing 2 tickets, you come in at 7.84*10^14. Now, in a 2 month period, at 2 drawings per week, I'll be modest and say only $10 for tickets each drawing, that allows for 4.88*10^12. Nothing compared to some of the numbers I gave earlier.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick,

What's a Bible Literalist? Wooden Literalist? What about the figures of speech?

So when the Bible says you are a filthy menstal cloth (Isaiah 64:6), as a literalist, I am to actually believe that you are not a human being, but a physical real cloth that was used for a woman's period? or are you a dirty menstral cloth with legs?

But if the literalist does realize and understand figures speech, does that make him a literalist? I'm confused, help me out Jeff mister.

Please explain the relationahip between a literalist in relation to figures of speech? So a literalist denies ALL figures of speech?

You sure you're not new to this whole atheist thing?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey jeffy

Hey Jeff,

What is a Bible literalist? ?

So if somebody rejects all the figures of speech, does this make him a literalist?

For example, in Isaiah 64:6 where it calls you a fiilthy bloody menstral rag. So as a literalist, I must assume that you are not a human, but a literal menstral rag that writes blog posts?

So wait, So if you are a litreal physical walking dirty used menstral rag with legs, then how can you talk or write? doe you as a rag have hands?

Okay, so if somebody realizes that there are indeed figures of speech, is this a literalist?

When you say literalist, are you also meaning a wooden literalist? Or are you talking about Literal as in the Literal Sense?

__________

jack, William Lane Craig is a heretic and is not a Christian. He is going to hell unless God rescues him from his stupidity. I studied under him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I may have to apologize to

I may have to apologize to you Jakespell, I didn't realize you were still in grade school science class.

Quote:
Define how something becomes proven, scientifically.

Collecting data, testing and falsification, independent verification, peer review.

But I DID NOT invent that, that basic method was around  long before I was born.

What you are STUPIDLY doing is pretending that observation of myths and traditions constitutes bearded men with magic super powers floating in the sky because a statue was found or a book was written.

THERE IS A HUGE difference between an archeologist and an apologist. An archeologist simply says "These people did these things and believed these things. An apologist is nothing but a snake oil salesman trying to get you to buy a superstition.

IT TAKES TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote which makes the magic baby Jesus a bullshit story. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis making his death story bullshit too. Just because people have had 2,000 years of believing bullshit claims doesn't make magic real. Archeologists know about the beliefs of King Tut and the Egyptians recorded their claims of the sun being a god, but the sun is NOT a god.

It is not my fault some slick snake oil salesman has convinced you that mixing religion and science makes your god real. Muslims and Jews have tried to pull the same shit, it doesn't work when you do it either.

You have fallen for elaborate tripe, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know. 2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"Find evidence that Allah does not exist"

"Find evidence that Yahweh does not exist"

"Find evidence that Vishnu does not exist"

"Find evidence that there isn't a giant invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter"

Like all claimants of ALL, LET ME REPEAT, ALL DEITY CLAIMS, in our species evolution, you are merely projecting your own human qualities and desires in as a cause.

Do you spend your life trying to disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns? Or does it make more sense to you that the gods you reject are merely made up? I simply reject one more god claim than you do.

READ the following

"The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins

"The New Atheism" Victor Stinger

"Why People Believe Weird Things" Michael Shermer

All of these books go into the NATURAL reason why people make up placebo gap answers. It is merely a fantasy gap answer people plug in as a false sense of security. It does have the sugar pill affect of creating safety in numbers. Just like the false belief that the sun was a god created the safety in numbers for the Ancient Egyptians which served them well for 3,000 years.

Now,

You are so desperate to want a "WHO" to be the cause of everything. Does a hurricane need the ocean god Neptune to occur? No, so why would life or anything in the universe need a cognition? It never occurs to believers of all labels that the deities they believe in are merely fantasies sold to them by the societies they are born into.

PEOPLE MAKE UP GODS, nothing more. It is all in your head.

Thoughts require a material process, much like running is not a thing itself, but an observable outcome of the process of legs moving faster and faster. So if you have no legs, you cant run. There has to be a biological material brain for thought to occur.

SINCE evolution is the only place we find the evolution of biological brains in ALL  animals, to stupidly think there is a non material version of such IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A FUCKING STUPID CLAIM.

There never was and never will be a non-material invisible magic man with no brain. The universe is the result of a non cognitive process just like a hurricane is the result of a non cognitive climate.

You have merely fallen for your own emotional desire to want protection. It is merely a evolutionary hiccup in the desire to keep your parents and avoid your finite existence. It was no different when people believed voclanos were gods, No different when people worshiped Apollo, and no modern monotheism gets a pass either. ALL DEITIES ARE HUMAN INVENTIONS, yours and everyone claimed in human history.

ANTHROPOMORPHISM, look it up. That is what you are doing. You are projecting your own desires and human qualities on the world around you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm somehow unsurprised that

I'm somehow unsurprised that my point by point response was ignored. Good on everyone else for predicting as much and not really bothering with it, but I figured someone should take them all at least once, for the peanut gallery.

jackspell wrote:
Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules

Oh awesome. He didn't even read up to my response to his second assertion, let alone the complete refutation. So this is him making a complete idiot of himself, and proving he's not worth speaking to. So keep in mind when writing responses to him that he's ignoring you. The only people actually reading what you type are observers.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm somehow

Vastet wrote:
I'm somehow unsurprised that my point by point response was ignored. Good on everyone else for predicting as much and not really bothering with it, but I figured someone should take them all at least once, for the peanut gallery.
jackspell wrote:
Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules
Oh awesome. He didn't even read up to my response to his second assertion, let alone the complete refutation. So this is him making a complete idiot of himself, and proving he's not worth speaking to. So keep in mind when writing responses to him that he's ignoring you. The only people actually reading what you type are observers.

You are right Vastet, he is merely pissing in the wind.

This is so fucking stupid. Plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. If  carbon based life forms need a cognition to form complexity then he needs to suck on a tail pipe. Don't do it Jack, it would kill you.

SERIOUSLY JACK your logic sucks. Is cancer or ecoli or flesh eating bacteria caused by "cognition"? Or you just going to be a dumbass and cherry pick what is caused and uncaused?

LIFE IS THE CAUSE OF EVOLUTION, NOT SOME STUPID MADE UP MAN WITH A BEARD AND A MAGIC WAND.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know. 2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

1. So you wasted everyone's time with your bottom line of falsehoods?

2. All I did was tell you how to disprove evolution - are you admitting you can't?

3. Never made the claim that God doesn't exist so I don't have to disprove that he does.

4. There are these things called search engines - type in "transitional fossils" in one.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know. 2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

Let's see... you wasted everyone's time with your bottom line, you can't disprove the theory of evolution in spite of me giving you the only way you can and you don't know how to use search engines.

Got it. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jack, your other problem is

Jack, your other problem is that you treat words in science differently than their scientific meaning. Carbon used by evolution does NOT KILL otherwise plants would not evolve. You treat "carbon" like coal and they are TWO completely different molecule structures.

You think of oxygen as being organic but when manipulated by humans to be used for certain things CAN KILL. If you drink too much water, that too CAN KILL. We eat some foods that contain iodine and THAT does not kill us.

You stupidly treating "carbon" in evolution as the same as coal and the STRUCTURES on the molecule level are not remotely the same in CONTEXT of how the atoms are arranged. Carbon in coal is not the same as carbon as used in evolution.

PUT DOWN YOUR BIBLE and read a fucking periodic table.

It is the same as water, water is both good and bad for humans DEPENDING ON FORM. Fresh water we drink, salt water WILL KILL US. Some life has adapted to use both which means EVOLUTION IS AT WORK, not magic.

HOW A MOLECULE IS OBSERVED MATTERS. It is why water can both be a liquid and a gas in the form of vapor or in the form of ice. Salt water and fresh water are both water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

Let me bottom line your bottom line:

1. Life from non-life is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do we know how abiogenesis works? No, not yet (scientists are working on it). Does that mean we have to throw up "Goddidit" and stop thinking as you apparently have?

2. Evolution guarantees that you will never see animals jump from one clade (biological classification system) to another. As I said, finding such an animal is what you creationists need to do so you can disprove the theory. Happy hunting.

3. If you'd read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject instead of trusting ID apologists who couldn't provide an honest report if their tongues were notarized, you'd know that we have so many transitional fossils that scientists are forced to ask questions about fossils like "Is this a mammal with reptilian qualities or is it a reptile with mammalian qualities?"

Stop making this so easy.

 

1. If you had read the initial post, you wouldn't look like an ass by trying to explain to me what I have clearly demonstrated to know. 2. Oh, okay. Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting. 3. By all means, send me the link.

1. If you had clearly demonstrated to know what you were talking about you wouldn't have bothered with your "bottom line".

2. I gave you exactly what you needed to find to disprove evolution. Since you can't do that and I have no need to prove God doesn't exist (as I never made that claim), this is another time waster.

3. Type in "transitional fossils" into a reliable search engine. Read what comes back.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell, 1. If you had

jackspell, 

1. If you had clearly demonstrated to know what you were talking about you wouldn't have bothered with your "bottom line".

2. I gave you exactly what you needed to find to disprove evolution. Since you can't do that and I have no need to prove God doesn't exist (as I never made that claim), this is another time waster.

3. Type in "transitional fossils" into a reliable search engine. Read what comes back.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:First, what

jackspell wrote:

First, what is being optimized is a formal representation of meaning and function. A representation of any kind cannot be reduced to inanimate physicality. Second, “potential solutions” are formal, not merely physical entities. Third, at each iteration (generation) a certain portion of the population of potential solutions is deliberately selected by the agent experimenter (artificial selection) to “breed” a new generation. The optimized solution was purposefully pursued at each iteration. The overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal. Fourth, a formal fitness function is used to define and measure the fittest solutions thus far to a certain formal problem. The act of defining and measuring, along with just about everything else in the GA procedure, is altogether formal, not physical. How about you go and call the "atheist help desk" back to inform them that you aren't dealing with any ape descendants. Then drink some Vitamin Water, and try again.

 

Sweet pea, evolution has a goal -- all living organisms have the goal of producing survivable grandchildren.  If you can not produce children who can produce children, your genes will not make it into the future.  Your species will go extinct.

Deliberate selection does occur - by the surrounding environment.  If you are evolved for living without oxygen (anaerobic bacteria, e.g.), you will not survive to produce offspring in an aerobic environment.  Selection is not consciously directed, but it does happen.  Constantly.  But only semi-randomly.

We have all evolved by being selected by a combination of environmental factors. 

And yeah, we all share a common ancestor with chimpanzees - and those creatures lived about 5-7 million years ago.  Genes don't lie.

http://scienceandevolution.blogspot.com/2007/09/human-chimpanzee-split-occured-5-7.html

There are a lot of other articles on the subject.  You might try some course work in genetics

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The only coward here

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

 

is the person too scared to accept the material evidence showing they're a composite colony of single cells, that they are not important by supernatural decree, that that will not spend eternity with jesus combing their golden hair. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

 

is the person too scared to accept the material evidence showing they're a composite colony of single cells, that they are not important by supernatural decree, that that will not spend eternity with jesus combing their golden hair. 

 

 

Keep ignoring the question, cowards. I love it. I don't dodge anything, and yet, not a single person will answer it. It's okay though. I already new that nobody (with the exception of Brian) is really stupid enough to believe naturalism is true. I understand you just like talking about science, as if it implies an IQ level higher than Christians. A piece of advice though, If you truly aim to appear intellectually superior to theists, just put the theist badge on Brian. Hell, that would be the best argument I've heard thus far on why Christianity irrational.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

 

is the person too scared to accept the material evidence showing they're a composite colony of single cells, that they are not important by supernatural decree, that that will not spend eternity with jesus combing their golden hair. 

 

 

Keep ignoring the question, cowards. I love it. I don't dodge anything, and yet, not a single person will answer it. It's okay though. I already new that nobody (with the exception of Brian) is really stupid enough to believe naturalism is true. I understand you just like talking about science, as if it implies an IQ level higher than Christians. A piece of advice though, If you truly aim to appear intellectually superior to theists, just put the theist badge on Brian. Hell, that would be the best argument I've heard thus far on why Christianity irrational.

jackspell wrote:
To show that any naturalist has to rely on "faith" to maintain his worldview. But answer this for me: if I was the operations supervisor for the powerball lottery, and I won 5 consecutive times, would you say 1. God made me win. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?

To answer your question... It would be cheating. The rules stipulate that employees are not elligible, at least here in California. I believe most if not all follow these general guidlines.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Bayesian probability equations cannot

jackspell wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jackspell wrote:

 

Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

 

is the person too scared to accept the material evidence showing they're a composite colony of single cells, that they are not important by supernatural decree, that that will not spend eternity with jesus combing their golden hair. 

 

 

Keep ignoring the question, cowards. I love it. I don't dodge anything, and yet, not a single person will answer it. It's okay though. I already new that nobody (with the exception of Brian) is really stupid enough to believe naturalism is true. I understand you just like talking about science, as if it implies an IQ level higher than Christians. A piece of advice though, If you truly aim to appear intellectually superior to theists, just put the theist badge on Brian. Hell, that would be the best argument I've heard thus far on why Christianity irrational.

 

prove the existence of god. Instead they are a lovely example of Jackass' classic false dilemma in which he pressupposes on the basis of no proof that there are only 2 choices available to us as we consider potential prime movers.

One choice is an undefinable god of his personal choice and the other is completely random and blind chance, a concept of the human brain that has never yet been proven to actually exist. 

Moreover, there is no proof whatever that these 2 options are the only 2 options that might create or lead to the formation of a universe. 

Instead, in an infinite whatever-verse, pre-bang, there would be infinite options with infinite possible data sets to direct infinite equations and faced with the reality of endless possibilities, Bayesian theory would fall apart. 

And just for the record, Jackass, we are not ignoring the question. You are ignoring the answer. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
P versus NP problem...Yet

P versus NP problem...Yet unsolved. All you mathematicians and your FAITH!


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

jackspell wrote:
 Answer my Lotto question, unless you are too much of a coward like everyone else apparently is.

 

Because your lotto question is irrelevant and stupid, but if it will make you happy- If you are the operations manager and you play the lotto you are by definition cheating regardless of whether or not you win. All lotteries have rules that specifically state employees cannot play the lottery and often that is extended to close family members or anyone living in the same household. So to play you are breaking the rules, and therefore cheating.

 

Now suppose you weren't an employee, just some random person who wins 5 times- most likely you just got really lucky. Cheating is certainly possible, but pretty stupid to cheat multiple times because the odds of getting caught and losing everything increase. Such unlikely occurrences can happen. Joan Ginther overcame great odds to win the Texas lotto four times. http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2010-07-13-lottery-winner-texas_N.htm

Thanks dude! You proved my point better than I could've hoped! First, you should at least read the articles before referencing them. Joan Ginther's winnings have NOTHING TO DO WITH OVERCOMING "GREAT ODDS". Her first win, was in the form of a lotto drawing. The next three were scratch off tickets. Now, initially that would seem even more miraculous. Hence, this warrants extreme skepticism. The same skepticism I apply to anything with similar probability, including NATURALISM. Consequently, this leads to not only a highly plausible explanation, but the simple truth of Joan's conquering "great odds". She holds a PhD in mathematics from a little school you may have heard of, the University of Stanford. The scratch cards aren't shipped out to stores by any mechanism that aims to be random. Rather, the distribution pattern is determined algorithmicaly, ensuring a fair geographical distribution. With Joan's extraordinary education level, she was able to discover this algorithm. Hence, her knowledge of the location of every jackpot card, and her probabilistic resources from her first lotto winnings, make the three winnings HIGHLY PROBABLE. Therefor, your monumental failure at an attempt to explain away a seemingly impossible event as CHANCE, unwittingly proves the point I was attempting to make with my own lotto question. EVENTS WITH AN IMPROBABILITY OF THIS MAGNITUDE ARE ONLY POSSIBLE VIA INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Joan is a form of INTELLIGENCE. She DESIGNED events capable of achieving an outcome that could NEVER BE ATTRIBUTED TO CHANCE. Now, what's really funny here, is in your frantic scramble to justify naturalism, you become one of the infinite mechanisms at God's disposal for offering us evidence of His existence. Furthermore, your undeniable claim that "Joan Hinter overcame great odds", demonstrates you are capable of rational thought. You assumed these odds to be great because you weren't aware of the facts about Joan's education and resources. Having done so, you affirm what any logical mind would conclude; that a 4 time lotto winner warrants the upmost skepticism. Concordantly, a winner of 5 consecutive Powerball jackpots (just as MY question asked) would meet a barrage of fraudulent accusations. But, what if, unlike Joan Hinter's situation, no evidence of an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER could be uncovered? Would you immediately dismiss all accusations of fraud and TRULY BELIEVE WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT that this person is a "5 consecutive week" winner of the Powerball? A chance conqueror of 1 in 10^41? I seriously doubt any of y'all are willing to pay the ridiculous intellectual price necessary to argue for CHANCE. Therefor, without any shred of evidence demonstrating that, or even HOW, fraud could occur, we are still rational to believe that this event is a PRODUCT OF AN ILLEGAL SCHEME OF SOME SORT (a direct example of INTELLIGENT DESIGN). So the million dollar question is, why do atheists blindly refute the idea of an Intelligent Designer as an explanation for our existence, and instead put all their faith in unproven(Darwinian evolution), never before observed(abiogenesis) events, that, coupled with the notion that our fine-tuned universe occured by CHANCE, constitute an improbability greater than winning the Powerball EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR A YEAR?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jackspell

Vastet wrote:
jackspell wrote:
1.
There is nothing to consider, it has been. Only a person ignorant of 200+ years of biology, chemistry, and archeology could claim otherwise. 2: Who said that there was no organic matter involved? We've seen organic matter throughout the universe. It's relatively common. Which is one of the reasons the search for life off of Earth has so much fervour to it. 3: I don't have an answer ready for you. Don't know everything. 4: That's a misrepresentation, nothing was created. Evolution happens when copying errors remove information to form a more specialised function. But the fossil record is the only available record for "how" it happened. 5: It isn't, so it shouldn't be. But it once was thought to be, because it can have an impact, and so that's the way it was taught. Natural selection is merely one way evolution can happen, and it isn't the most common or likely. The environment is by far the largest influence. The beauty of science is that when we learn more about something...

1. See Karl Popper. Then, once the embarrassment for looking like an ass goes away, come back and tell us what you've learned from your mistake.
2. Pay attention Captain Kirk. I didn't ask WHERE life came from. I asked how, did life form from inorganic matter? Since organic matter is from a once living organism, even an atheist should be able to see logically how valid this question is.
3. I appreciate your honesty.
4. Are you really this brain dead enough to admit evolution is insufficient for the explanation of DNA? Wow! Since DNA is information, and information is interpreted as a message, it's absurd to say that nothing was created. How could the formation of millions of pages worth of information not be created? Didn't think that through did you?
5. Somewhat redeemed yourself.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: Here's the

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: There are

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

1 - While I would agree with the statement and I know you cut and pasted this stuff so you didn't verify, I want to know how you know it is true.

 a- That question is comparing mass to volume. Did they account for the temperature and the pressure for the 80% of the ocean? i doubt it

 b - temperature and pressure increases density.

2 - since you cut and pasted this information (and no it isn't your own thoughts or words)

 a - if you started at the north pole and went to the south pole at the speed of light it wouldn't take you 93 billion years to cross. Please clarify your statement.

3 - Please provide the proofs for your answer of 10^80

4 - The odds of a single celled organism forming naturally are x:y. Considering the 14 billion years and all the other galaxies/solar systems/hospitable planets the odds are pretty good that there are rough +1 other planets in the universe with life on them.

 a - considering that there are a trillion trillion variables which you have not accounted for, your cut and pasted statement is conjecture.

 b - it still boils down to your puny closed mind not accepting that the odds are still possible. See, you didn't say it was 0% chance that life could form under it's own power. So this must mean that your faith in your god is less than 100%.

5 - If you win the lotto 5 weeks in a row three things will happen

 a - there will be a riot because people will think you cheated

 b - you will be put under investigation and your assets will be frozen, in fact, I suspect after the second win they won't bother paying you out on the other three.

 c - if you are cleared of the charges you will need to get a security team to protect you and you will need to go in to hiding. If you have family they will need protection too.

6 - Please provide all mathematical proofs of your claims.

 


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html

Your move.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: I didn't

jackspell wrote:
I didn't ask WHERE life came from. I asked how, did life form from inorganic matter?

IT DID NOT YOU IDIOT!

You are trying to prop up a specific god, not that it matters. WOULD this same tactic lead to Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu? YOU KNOW DAMNED FUCKING WELL it does not. So what makes you think you using this tactic will wow  to the point of accepting your magic baby/zombie god?

Your MISTAKE is that you see everything in the universe and everything in biology as an invention, rather than a collection, like rain collects in a pool. Do you think a cloud thinks about the shape of the raindrop, or how many raindrops it makes?

EXACTLY what part of DNA is inorganic?

EVOLUTION WAS NOT AN INVENTION OF ANY FUCKING FICTIONAL GOD. THE UNIVERSE IS NOT THE INVENTION OF ANY GOD! THE ONLY THING INVENTED ARE MYTHS BECAUSE OF GULLIBLE PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

The universe is not an invention like the telephone. Evolution is not an invention like the cell phone. BOTH ARE merely the result of prior conditions and climates, much like certain conditions in the atmosphere will lead to snow, or rain, or tornados or hurricanes. NO COGNITION REQUIRED.

IF YOU THINK A DEITY DID ALL THIS , then you might as well believe Neptune makes hurricanes.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html Your move.

 

Sorry, the ball is still in your court. You completely whiffed at trying to return my previous spike.

You didn't read the entire entry for the Miller-Urey experiment did you? Well I read the entire post you provided and I immediately found out that it was outdated and providing mis-information.

The sole "scientist" your provided was JH John Peet who, while having degrees, has one sole purpose in his life. It's to criticize any science which might harm the idea that a god exists. He provides a quasi-science that has been twisted and mutilated to fit a answer (aka - a god exists).

Also, the post from JH John Peet is WAY out dated. There weren't 9 amino acids found but 25!

Other compounds were also created in other experiments similar to the Miller-Urey experiment.

So you prove that you are ignorant because you make a statement

jackspell wrote:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids

Yet I produce information proving otherwise and even your precious JH Peet admits that amino acids WERE created in the experiment.

 

 


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 There are more subatomic particles in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans.  And there are particles that size, scattered throughout an area, that a beam of light, traveling about 186000 miles each second, would need 93,000,000,000 years to cross.  And the number of these particles is around 10^80.  Even if I grant you the cosmological constants necessary for the chemistry and conditions necessary for life to exist, the probability of a single called organism forming naturally is 10^57800.  A human being is around 4^360^110000.  Wow.  I see nobody will answer answer my question.  If a am operations manager of the Powerball Lotto, and I win 5 weeks in a row, was it 1. God's intervention. 2. I got lucky. 3. I cheated?  My next post contains some of the anthropic coincidences that exist making a life permitting universe possible. 

 

1 - While I would agree with the statement and I know you cut and pasted this stuff so you didn't verify, I want to know how you know it is true.

 a- That question is comparing mass to volume. Did they account for the temperature and the pressure for the 80% of the ocean? i doubt it

 b - temperature and pressure increases density.

2 - since you cut and pasted this information (and no it isn't your own thoughts or words)

 a - if you started at the north pole and went to the south pole at the speed of light it wouldn't take you 93 billion years to cross. Please clarify your statement.

3 - Please provide the proofs for your answer of 10^80

4 - The odds of a single celled organism forming naturally are x:y. Considering the 14 billion years and all the other galaxies/solar systems/hospitable planets the odds are pretty good that there are rough +1 other planets in the universe with life on them.

 a - considering that there are a trillion trillion variables which you have not accounted for, your cut and pasted statement is conjecture.

 b - it still boils down to your puny closed mind not accepting that the odds are still possible. See, you didn't say it was 0% chance that life could form under it's own power. So this must mean that your faith in your god is less than 100%.

5 - If you win the lotto 5 weeks in a row three things will happen

 a - there will be a riot because people will think you cheated

 b - you will be put under investigation and your assets will be frozen, in fact, I suspect after the second win they won't bother paying you out on the other three.

 c - if you are cleared of the charges you will need to get a security team to protect you and you will need to go in to hiding. If you have family they will need protection too.

6 - Please provide all mathematical proofs of your claims.

 

 

1. If you provide the link that you THINK I copied and pasted from, and demonstrate that I in fact did so, I will renounce Christianity forever.  And unlike you, I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE  because I actually have a formal, graduate-level engineering education in mathematics.  I don't do like most people I have seen on these threads, and PRETEND to be smart.  But if you are asking me to demonstrate this:

The atomic mass of hydrogen is 1.00784 u and that of oxygen is 15.9994 u. Therefore, the molecular mass of water with formula H2O is (2 × 1.00784 u) + 15.9994 u = 18.01508 u. Therefore, one molecule of water weighs 18.01508 u, and one mole of water weighs 18.01508 grams.

A mole is defined as Avogadro's number of particles of any kind of substance (atoms, molecules, or ions). Avogadro's number is approximately 6.022 × 1023.

Thus 18.01508 grams of water contain 6.022 × 1023 water molecules, or 1.68616e+25 subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons here).  

A 6.76 fl oz glass of water at temperature 4°C is 200 grams of water, therefore it contains 6.6855 × 1024 water molecules, or 1.87194e+26 subatomic particles.

The total volume of the world ocean is approximately 1.3 billion km3, or 4.369232845e+16 fl oz.

Therefore, upon dividing the volume of the world ocean (4.369232845e+16 fl oz) by the volume of each glass (6.76 fl oz), we arrive at 6.4633621967455621301775147928994e+15 glasses of water, which is substantially less than the 1.87194e+26 particles that are in each glass.  Anymore questions?

1a. You are dead wrong in asserting the comparison of mass to volume.  Rather, I am describing "number density".  Try to keep up.  Changes in ocean volume due to temperature and pressure are negligible to this discussion.  No fluctuation could produce a condition that would falsify my claim.

1b. They can also DECREASE density. 

2. Like I said, prove that paragraph isn't my own thoughts, and you can change my badge to "atheist".

2a. I am not talking about the earth.  I am referring to our ENTIRE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE! Having spherical volume, the diameter is 93 billion light-years.  Sorry, I assumed you knew this.

3. Common elementary particles

Several estimates imply that practically all the matter, when measured by mass, in the visible universe (not including dark matter) is in the protons of hydrogen atoms, and that roughly 1080 protons exist in the visible universe (Eddington number), and roughly 1080 atoms exist in the visible universe.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

4. How do you arrive at x:y probability for abiogenesis? I can easily demonstrate how improbable abiogenesis is.  Let us assume the "first living cell" had 300 gene complexes, with an average length of 3,000 nucleotides (or nucleotide pairs).  Human gene complexes are far more complicated, and longer, than the gene complexes of the "first living cell" (if such a cell ever existed).

Now let us assume the probability of a random permutation of 3,000 nucleotides, being able to create a gene complex for the "first living cell," was 10‑5.  This number is ridiculously generous to the theory of evolution (i.e. the real probability is much, much less than that).

Thus, we have a probability that an RNA or DNA strand for the "first living cell" would have a viable permutation of nucleotides is: 10(‑5x300) which is equal to 10‑1,500.

Using the above example, 50 of the 300 gene complexes would be used to create one protein structure.  But even the above probability of 10‑1,500 ignores a lot of things, such as the viability of different combinations of proteins (remember, proteins must fit together, thus just having a bunch of proteins doesn't help at all, they must be a "set" of proteins which have very specific shapes and have specific amino acids in just the right places). 

How do you figure that odds are pretty good that there are life on other planets? Considering we know of life on only 1 planet, I would love to see your calculation

4a. By all means, list some of the trillion trillion variables I have not accounted for.

4b. My puny closed mind hungh? Okay, lets compare probabilities of human life based on our worldviews: Mine-an all powerful God exercising his will to create us=1  Yours-naturalism=4-360(110,000).  And yet, you KNOW there is no God! Hilarious.

5. All of that is my point! Nobody would believe those wins would be the product of CHANCE.  Including you.  You explain it as INTELLIGENT DESIGN(I am a form of INTELLIGENCE.  The mechanism I used to cheat is the DESIGN).  So why are you a hypocrite, and invoke CHANCE for the origin of life? Especially when it has an astronomically worse degree of improbability.

 


 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:  Find

jackspell wrote:

 

 Find proof that God doesn't exist to DISPROVE IT. Happy hunting.

 

                      And while jcgadfly is doing that little bit of homework that you gave him,  why don't you apply the same approach to all those other gods that you don't believe in.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:    Find

 

 

                                                                                                                                           

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Since DNA is

jackspell wrote:

Since DNA is information, and information is interpreted as a message, it's absurd to say that nothing was created. How could the formation of millions of pages worth of information not be created?

 

    

    Since you are utterly dumbfounded at our apparent inability to sufficiently explain our non-supernatural theories, please defend your own theory and explain..in detail...how things are simply "created".   Please avoid any explanations that make an appeal to "faith™" as that is simply an attempt to sidestep having to provide evidence.  Convince us.  

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

Since DNA is information, and information is interpreted as a message, it's absurd to say that nothing was created. How could the formation of millions of pages worth of information not be created?

 

    

    Since you are utterly dumbfounded at our apparent inability to sufficiently explain our non-supernatural theories, please defend your own theory and explain..in detail...how things are simply "created".   Please avoid any explanations that make an appeal to "faith™" as that is simply an attempt to sidestep having to provide evidence.  Convince us.  

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.

JS won't answer your question nor produce any facts. Every thing being posted is fallacies and conjecture; the strategy being played at all atheists is "hey the ball is in your court, prove me wrong".

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: 1. If you

jackspell wrote:

1. If you provide the link that you THINK I copied and pasted from, and demonstrate that I in fact did so, I will renounce Christianity forever.  And unlike you, I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE  because I actually have a formal, graduate-level engineering education in mathematics.  I don't do like most people I have seen on these threads, and PRETEND to be smart.  But if you are asking me to demonstrate this:

The atomic mass of hydrogen is 1.00784 u and that of oxygen is 15.9994 u. Therefore, the molecular mass of water with formula H2O is (2 × 1.00784 u) + 15.9994 u = 18.01508 u. Therefore, one molecule of water weighs 18.01508 u, and one mole of water weighs 18.01508 grams.

A mole is defined as Avogadro's number of particles of any kind of substance (atoms, molecules, or ions). Avogadro's number is approximately 6.022 × 1023.

Thus 18.01508 grams of water contain 6.022 × 1023 water molecules, or 1.68616e+25 subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons here).  

A 6.76 fl oz glass of water at temperature 4°C is 200 grams of water, therefore it contains 6.6855 × 1024 water molecules, or 1.87194e+26 subatomic particles.

The total volume of the world ocean is approximately 1.3 billion km3, or 4.369232845e+16 fl oz.

Therefore, upon dividing the volume of the world ocean (4.369232845e+16 fl oz) by the volume of each glass (6.76 fl oz), we arrive at 6.4633621967455621301775147928994e+15 glasses of water, which is substantially less than the 1.87194e+26 particles that are in each glass.  Anymore questions?

1a. You are dead wrong in asserting the comparison of mass to volume.  Rather, I am describing "number density".  Try to keep up.  Changes in ocean volume due to temperature and pressure are negligible to this discussion.  No fluctuation could produce a condition that would falsify my claim.

1b. They can also DECREASE density. 

2. Like I said, prove that paragraph isn't my own thoughts, and you can change my badge to "atheist".

2a. I am not talking about the earth.  I am referring to our ENTIRE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE! Having spherical volume, the diameter is 93 billion light-years.  Sorry, I assumed you knew this.

3. Common elementary particles

Several estimates imply that practically all the matter, when measured by mass, in the visible universe (not including dark matter) is in the protons of hydrogen atoms, and that roughly 1080 protons exist in the visible universe (Eddington number), and roughly 1080 atoms exist in the visible universe.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

4. How do you arrive at x:y probability for abiogenesis? I can easily demonstrate how improbable abiogenesis is.  Let us assume the "first living cell" had 300 gene complexes, with an average length of 3,000 nucleotides (or nucleotide pairs).  Human gene complexes are far more complicated, and longer, than the gene complexes of the "first living cell" (if such a cell ever existed).

Now let us assume the probability of a random permutation of 3,000 nucleotides, being able to create a gene complex for the "first living cell," was 10‑5.  This number is ridiculously generous to the theory of evolution (i.e. the real probability is much, much less than that).

Thus, we have a probability that an RNA or DNA strand for the "first living cell" would have a viable permutation of nucleotides is: 10(‑5x300) which is equal to 10‑1,500.

Using the above example, 50 of the 300 gene complexes would be used to create one protein structure.  But even the above probability of 10‑1,500 ignores a lot of things, such as the viability of different combinations of proteins (remember, proteins must fit together, thus just having a bunch of proteins doesn't help at all, they must be a "set" of proteins which have very specific shapes and have specific amino acids in just the right places). 

How do you figure that odds are pretty good that there are life on other planets? Considering we know of life on only 1 planet, I would love to see your calculation

4a. By all means, list some of the trillion trillion variables I have not accounted for.

4b. My puny closed mind hungh? Okay, lets compare probabilities of human life based on our worldviews: Mine-an all powerful God exercising his will to create us=1  Yours-naturalism=4-360(110,000).  And yet, you KNOW there is no God! Hilarious.

5. All of that is my point! Nobody would believe those wins would be the product of CHANCE.  Including you.  You explain it as INTELLIGENT DESIGN(I am a form of INTELLIGENCE.  The mechanism I used to cheat is the DESIGN).  So why are you a hypocrite, and invoke CHANCE for the origin of life? Especially when it has an astronomically worse degree of improbability.

 

I am so unimpressed.  All of that stuff - Chem 101.  You want to impress me?  Demonstrate your knowledge of chaotic systems theory. 

You are still not calculating the probabilities correctly.  You are not accounting for retaining the successes and discarding the misses.  Also, you must have skipped your biology classes.  There are precisely 4 - count them - 4 - nucleotides used to create codons.  What is a codon?  A triplet set of nucleotides. 

So combine 4 nucleotides 3 at a time.  Can you pass probability 101?  How many codons does that make?  The codons are combined to create proteins.  It is far from random.  Inorganic elements - CHNOPS - have you even heard of CHNOPS? - carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur - combine to make the nucleotides that make the codons that make the proteins.  Elements can only combine in a limited number of ways.  For example, carbon can only form 4 bonds with other elements.  Math - engineering or otherwise - does not make you an expert in biology - or evolution.

This is a very interesting video that shows in real time the synthesis of hemoglobin.  Note -there is nothing mysterious any more.  Your grandfather may have been puzzled, but biochemists have determined the mechanism well enough to simulate it.  I'm really impressed with the knowledge of our natural world that went into the making of this clip.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

Since DNA is information, and information is interpreted as a message, it's absurd to say that nothing was created. How could the formation of millions of pages worth of information not be created?

 

    

    Since you are utterly dumbfounded at our apparent inability to sufficiently explain our non-supernatural theories, please defend your own theory and explain..in detail...how things are simply "created".   Please avoid any explanations that make an appeal to "faith™" as that is simply an attempt to sidestep having to provide evidence.  Convince us.  

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.

JS won't answer your question nor produce any facts. Every thing being posted is fallacies and conjecture; the strategy being played at all atheists is "hey the ball is in your court, prove me wrong".

 

 

I will gladly answer the question.  I dodge questions from no one.  But let me first address your erroneous perceptions.  First, abiogenesis may be non-supernatural, but it is still a fallacious appeal to probability for anyone claiming it's truth.  At this point, it is no more credible than Christianity.  Secondly, it appears that you are one of the many atheists who fail to use the most widely interpreted definition of FAITH.  It is NOT belief without EVIDENCE.  Rather, it is belief without PROOF. 

1faith

noun \ˈfāth\ plural faiths  

Definition of FAITH

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith   Just one of the majority of dictionaries that cite this. So an appeal to faith is not an attempt to sidestep EVIDENCE.  At this point, we have both appealed to faith in each others eyes, because we have not PERSUADED each other to our own PROOF about the truth of our beliefs.  And I have provided a multitude of evidence on my short time on this website, making any claims about me appealing to faith even more absurd. Nonetheless, just as everyone on this thread that has defended naturalism has done, I will give my OPINION, about how God's mechanism for creation works.  I do not claim to fully comprehend God, or any of the  mechanisms for exercising His will.  Although, I do believe the act of Him creating, parallels our own exertion of will.  And in this context, I find the idea of God to be extremely plausible, even for the skeptics.  Think about it; we are embodied minds.  We create things all the time.  How does that work? Well, the first thing that happens, is we must obtain a desire to do so.  We do this by making a choice.  Then, our will is exerted by our mental control of our bodies.  What brings about PHYSICAL effects, starts with our MENTAL exertion of free will, CHOICE.  In God's case, creation may have been similar.  God is personal, and therefore makes the CHOICE to exercise His free will, thereby bringing about PHYSICAL effects, just as we do.  Consequently, I would expect one to ask, "why don't we see his PHYSICAL body?".  I would say that we shouldn't necessarily expect to.  Our observable universe is 93 billion light-years, and rapidly getting larger with every passing second.  Maybe our world is like the "Men in Black" movies perception; we are quantum specks in an enormous God's world.  In that case, if we are the relative observer of God, we are simply too far away for the light from his position to reach us.  Einstein was able to prove through Special Relativity, that time slowed down as you approach the speed of light.  Since time is inversely proportional to velocity, perhaps velocity could be relative to the size of the observer, in which case the light from our galaxy could be perceived with a higher velocity to an enormous God, enabling Him to view our planet in real time.  This would explain how he could exist outside of our universe.   At least, until our universe has existed long enough for the visible light to have sufficient time to reach us.   Maybe creation is analogous to lighting a firecracker.  Imagine beings small enough to exist in a world the size of a firecracker that would, upon exploding, would meet no other unbalanced force.  According to Newton's first law of motion, it would follow that it's contents would expand from the point of origin forever.  Since we light firecrackers and move away before detonation, the universe inside the firecracker wouldn't reach us instantaneously.  Just as our observable universe may have not reached God yet.  Maybe creation like the lighting of a fuse.  What if He set all the initial conditions that govern the laws of physics as we know them, in a manner similar to someone packing a firecracker with powder (matter) and chemicals (energy) that react to the lighting of a fuse?   Now, all this is PURE SPECULATION, as I have never claimed to have all the answers.  But it is what popped into my head as I was typing.  Furthermore, I offer a challenge to anyone who wants to reply by telling me how irrational and illogical all this is (pay close attention Brian).  Go ahead and criticize it, but don't be an intellectual coward and not also tell me how you believe everything came to be.

 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig