Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 15, 2014 at 1:43 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: This. Snowy has a problem with abiogenesis only because it doesn't literally describe god playing in a sandbox, molding a man out of clay, and breathing in his face before placing him in the garden of Eden.
In his "mind" scientists are scared to present this "theory" because of a worldwide "conspiracy" that will pull their funding if they stop doing science and replace theory and experimentation with hand scrawled "Dunno GodDidIt" notes.
People tend to get so wrapped up in the "Garden of Eden" story that they overlook the fact that the Bible says where it was and even when it existed. I can understand casual Bible readers missing it but even preachers and priests overlook it. So if the God character actually made a man from common field dirt and then a woman from the man's rib it was on a planet in a galaxy far, far, far away. It didn't happen on this one.
There are books that tell us all about the life of James Bond - and Harry Potter - And Sherlock Holmes TOO.
The bible is NOT a historical refererence - it is a book of religious MYTH and we KNOW that some things in the bible are simply NOT TRUE - example - there was NO worldwide flood as described in the bible.
And sorry - but the majority of xtian sects - representing over 75% of the xtians in the world - have already accepted evolution. Unlike the small sects made up of stupid people, the larger sects cannot risk another round of being wrong - like that of the earth being the rigid center of the Universe - which it is also not.
Yes - you are right - what is said in the bible - "DIDN'T HAPPEN"
(June 16, 2014 at 2:33 am)snowtracks Wrote: "iterative probability" - saw you posted it and understand it. now, should I call a press conference?
Based on your response, you seem to barely grasp that it has something to do with "big numbers"... and that's about where it ends. The rest was a complete non sequitur.
Talking about things you don't understand isn't doing anything to further your cause, unless you're just trying to wait everyone out until they quit talking to you in frustration.
(June 8, 2014 at 10:46 pm)snowtracks Wrote: it goes like this: when there is a high level of coincidences that makes earth life suitable, those that are committed to the presupposition of no-design proceed to make some very metaphysical speculation. you even have a post in cybspace that embraces panspermia. anyone seen any ufo's lately? if you have, please keep it to yourself.
It's not much of a coincidence in a galaxy with millions of potentially habitable planets, that at least one of them would develop life, and that's witthout considering that there are billions of other galaxies. We don't need UFOs to know this, just excellent telescopes. On this scale, life could be inevitable, yet wherever it arose, to locals who only thought about it superficially, it would seem amazing luck was involved. Yet you never see a lottery winner returning the ticket because the odds against them winning are so unbelievably high...when there's money involved, they get that enough people buy tickets, somebody is going to win.
(October 4, 2013 at 9:20 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:
Abiogenesis is impossible
To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.
That first part of that, abiogenesis, is impossible. Also whatever that first creature was, it will not evolve upward to the first living cell.
So some evolutionists came up with a scheme to hide all that impossibility. They said that evolution does not include abiogenesis (life from non-life) and that abiogenesis is a separate topic.
So they take the atoms to mankind task and divide it into separate pieces. But the 2 pieces do not add up to the whole task, thus hiding the impossible parts by leaving them out of both pieces.
Now if you honestly divide the atoms to mankind task into 2 pieces, you have atoms to the first living creature in the first part, and the same first living creature evolving upward up to mankind in the second part. But that is not what evolutionists do. They take abiogenesis and make the first living thing as small as possible. (BTW - even that can be proven false) and start with a much larger and advanced creature for the second part. That gap is a great deception. That tiny little theorized first thing (which they still do not state what it is) could never cross that gap and evolve to the more advanced creature.
The conundrum is if the first living creature is too small and primitive, then it could not even survive, reproduce, and evolve up to an RNA or DNA based creature.
But if the first living creature is advanced, then the already impossible odds against abiogenesis become so mind-boggling against it.
To calculate the odds against abiogenesis is difficult. But one technique is to underestimate the odds against. That will set a lower bound for the odds.
First living thing is protein based
Assume a first living thing composed of just amino acids formed into proteins. Now to survive, it would require a number of different types of proteins and multiples of each. Assume 20 different types of proteins, with about 50 of each, and about 100 amino acids per protein. That means there are 100,000 amino acids. This would be a very primitive first creature. It may not even be able to survive. It would be extremely likely that it could reproduce.
There are 20 different types of amino acids in living things and 19 of them can be left and right handed, so there are 39 different possibilities for each amino acid. Therefore there are 39^100,000 or 10^160,000 combinations. It has never been observed that amino acids on their own ever would form any such long chains with all of the other atoms molecules needed in place. Therefore the odds are infinitely against this first creature. But just to help, assume that for every tiniest point throughout the entire universe (a cube with side length equal to a Plank length) and for every smallest fraction of time (the time it takes light to travel a Plank length) for all the supposed 12 billion years of the universe, a combination of 100,000 amino acids formed. That gives 10^250 possibilities. So the odds against this primitive first creature is 10^159,750 to one. Those odds are so mind boggling against that this indeed would be a miracle of miracles. I did not even consider the many millions of other atoms that must be in place when this creature forms. Taking that into account, the odds become even more preposterous against. Of course the odds are actually infinitely against as stated above.
Now even if the creature formed, it would not survive. Also how would such a creature reproduce? So it does not even lead anywhere.
Now could this first creature ever evolve upward to RNA through natural selection? The answer is no. The reason is that until all of the proteins are in place to use RNA, RNA provides no survival advantages. In fact, if the creature tries to rely on the incomplete RNA system, it would die. Natural selection prevents such a complex system from even being attempted.
In fact the 2nd, 3rd, 4th … creatures leading up to the first cell would all be miracles of miracles. Therefore, there would be a multitude of miracles of miracles, one after another, in an exact sequence and exact manner as if directed by a super intelligence to get to the first cell. The total odds against are probably infinite, but are at least 10^1,000,000,000 to one. If written out in long form, those odds would fill 300 books the size of the Bible. If the universe were a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times older and the universe were a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion larger in volume, the odds would be take about 1/3 of a page less to write out.
An even smaller first living creature does not help. It just increases the number of intermediate creatures up to the first cell. That increases the total number of miracles of miracles. But the total odds against do not decrease.
First living thing is RNA and protein based
Now for the first living thing to be RNA based, the creature would be much more complex. Such a creature would have an RNA code of at least 500,000 nucleotides. It would contain at least 1000 different proteins types, with at least a million total individual proteins. That would be about 100 million amino acid base pairs. The total number of atoms in such a creature would be greater than 1 billion.
Further complications arise for such a first creature. The RNA code must match the 1000 proteins that exist in the first creature. The proteins must be all in place and functional at the start. The entire RNA to protein system must be complete with all of the proteins to run it in existing and in place.
Obviously, this creature could never have just popped into existence. So the odds against this creature are probably infinite. But at least for a lower bound, the odds against such a creature are at least 10^1,000,000,000 to one.
Now could this first creature ever evolve upward to DNA based through natural selection? The answer is no. The reason is that until all of the proteins are in place to use DNA, DNA provides no survival advantages. In fact, if the creature tries to rely on the incomplete DNA system, it would die. So there would still be miracles of miracles still needed to get to the first DNA based cell.
An even smaller first living RNA based creature does not help. It just increases the number of intermediate creatures up to the first cell. That increases the total number of miracles of miracles. But the total odds against do not decrease.
First living thing is DNA based
Now for the first living thing to be DNA based, the creature would be much more complex. Such a creature would have a DNA code of at least 500,000 nucleotides. It would contain at least 1000 different proteins types, with at least a million total individual proteins. That would be about 100 million amino acid base pairs. The total number of atoms in such a creature would be greater than 1 billion.
Further complications arise for such a first creature. The DNA code must match the 1000 proteins that exist in the first creature. The proteins must be all in place and functional at the start. Both the entire DNA to RNA system and the RNA to protein system must be complete with all of the proteins to run it in existing and in place.
Obviously, this creature could never have just popped into existence. So the odds against this creature are probably infinite. But at least for a lower bound, the odds against such a creature are at least 10^2,000,000,000 to one.
Another problem is that RNA based creatures exist. So it will take another miracle of miracles for that creature to evolve from a DNA based creature. Natural selection again does not help. The RNA only system would have to complete for the switch to RNA only to work. But the RNA system cannot be tried by natural selection without causing death until it works. Natural selection then selects any attempt at this and relegates it for failure.
An even smaller first living DNA based creature does not help. It just increases the number of intermediate creatures up to the first cell. That increases the total number of miracles of miracles. But the total odds against do not decrease.
First living thing not based on proteins, RNA, or DNA
Again the odds against such a first creature will still be vast if not impossible. A multitude of miracles of miracles would be required to develop protein, RNA, and DNA creatures. This may actually be more far-fetched than any of the other 3 options.
Abiogensis is false
So no matter where it starts, abiogensis requires a multitude of miracles of miracles to get to the first cell. The odds against, if not infinite, are too mind boggling to even comprehend.
The odd against the atoms to mankind theory are much higher than those for abiogenesis. It can be shown that all the species that would be produced by upward evolution require miracles of miracles.
So for atheistic origin science a vast multitude of miracles of miracles must occur, one after another, in an exact sequence, in an exact manner as if directed by a super intelligence.
For creation, only 1 miraculous person is needed. Everything else becomes simple.
Occam’s razor selects creation by God.
Actually - the problem with YOUR logic - is obvious
YOU are not a trained and educated evolution scientist - YOU are demented and indoctrinated theist who takes the statements of other theists at face value when they are nonsense
Your explanation of Evolution is heavily flawed - and your constant claims that your explanation could be the ONLY way it could have happened is Laughable - since YOU have no learned nor direct knowledge of the subject.
YOU are proof that evolution happened - you are the result of the evolutionary effect of two humans producing offspring that are not identical to either original human - and that alone prove evolution happened
Now - in addition - we can prove that there never was a time when ALL of the earths different species lived together at the same time. Your genesis explanation is provably wrong on that one alone.
Once you present a theory - and it has provable flaws - it is up to YOU to correct the flaws and present a new theory that agrees with what reality has proven to be true. SO - you MUST accept that the bible story is wrong on a number of counts - and REWRITE the word of your inerrant - all knowing god - since he god it wrong.
In order for Abiogenesis to happen - a number of miracles of actually existing things would have had to happen - and your claim of odds are nonsense as well.
For creation - one - not actually proven to exist miraculous being is needed (not a person) = And we still have no basis for where that being could have come from - !
So -= Evolution - which has alreadly been proven through DNA studies - and has been accepted by the largest Xtian sects representing more than 75% of all xtians in the world - is what actually happened
June 16, 2014 at 2:44 pm (This post was last modified: June 16, 2014 at 3:07 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(June 15, 2014 at 2:30 am)snowtracks Wrote: poor guy is suffering so from such big, big numbers "but there are a lot of planets in the universe, snowtracks", "if we take into account the countless planets". first of all dufus, there are an estimated 10^82 atoms in the observable universe so you know the planets are less right?
There are fewer planets than atoms in the universe? Wow, any more breaking news, oh revelator?
(June 15, 2014 at 2:30 am)snowtracks Wrote: and did you know that the The Fermi Paradox has you flat on the ground and gasping for air?
Gee, since no one was claiming there are any galactic empires out there, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Maybe the average number of technological civilizations per galaxy is one in ten. Maybe no one can go faster than the speed of light. Fermi's paradox is only a paradox is you assume there should be other civilizations able to reach us. Why would someone assume that? Life could be as common as rocky, watery planets the right size-ish, and technological civilizations could still be incredibly rare. Since we are ignorant of the actual state of affairs regarding the frequency of life on other planets, and how often that life leads to sapience, we can draw no conclusions from our ignorance except that there don't seem to be any alien civilizations close enough for us to detect at this time with our current instrumentation.
(June 15, 2014 at 2:30 am)snowtracks Wrote: and do you believe in the galactic police force charged with painting over the graffitti left by other civilizations cited by the site?
You must find our position very convincing if you have to put this kind of crap in our mouths to pretend that we arent'.
(June 15, 2014 at 2:30 am)snowtracks Wrote: did you know The Fermi Paradox has you flat on the ground and gasping for air?
Did you know that there are in excess of two dozen hypothetical answers for the Fermi Paradox, and that there are several assumptions that form the inputs to the paradox who's actual values are currently unknown?
You behave as if it's some huge intractable, impossible problem. It isn't, not for anyone. It's an interesting question that we don't have a definitive answer for, yet.
(June 16, 2014 at 1:45 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: People tend to get so wrapped up in the "Garden of Eden" story that they overlook the fact that the Bible says where it was and even when it existed. I can understand casual Bible readers missing it but even preachers and priests overlook it. So if the God character actually made a man from common field dirt and then a woman from the man's rib it was on a planet in a galaxy far, far, far away. It didn't happen on this one.
There are books that tell us all about the life of James Bond - and Harry Potter - And Sherlock Holmes TOO.
The bible is NOT a historical refererence - it is a book of religious MYTH and we KNOW that some things in the bible are simply NOT TRUE - example - there was NO worldwide flood as described in the bible.
And sorry - but the majority of xtian sects - representing over 75% of the xtians in the world - have already accepted evolution. Unlike the small sects made up of stupid people, the larger sects cannot risk another round of being wrong - like that of the earth being the rigid center of the Universe - which it is also not.
Yes - you are right - what is said in the bible - "DIDN'T HAPPEN"
Even the Bible teaches evolution. So why do some people still have trouble accepting evolution?
There are books that tell us all about the life of James Bond - and Harry Potter - And Sherlock Holmes TOO.
The bible is NOT a historical refererence - it is a book of religious MYTH and we KNOW that some things in the bible are simply NOT TRUE - example - there was NO worldwide flood as described in the bible.
And sorry - but the majority of xtian sects - representing over 75% of the xtians in the world - have already accepted evolution. Unlike the small sects made up of stupid people, the larger sects cannot risk another round of being wrong - like that of the earth being the rigid center of the Universe - which it is also not.
Yes - you are right - what is said in the bible - "DIDN'T HAPPEN"
Even the Bible teaches evolution. So why do some people still have trouble accepting evolution?
(June 17, 2014 at 4:23 am)Freedom of thought Wrote:
(June 17, 2014 at 3:37 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Even the Bible teaches evolution. So why do some people still have trouble accepting evolution?
Where does it teach that?
The Protestants took this out of the KJV.
Wisdom 19:18-20 (CEB) = "18 If we are careful to observe events, we can see just how the elements of the universe are transformed. It’s the same transformation that happens when someone changes the sounds that a harp makes by changing the key while continuing to play the same melody. 19 In this way, land animals were changed into underwater creatures, while animals that swam in the waters now moved onto the land. 20 Fire was able to burn on the open water, while water forgot that it was supposed to put fire out." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=CEB
There are books that tell us all about the life of James Bond - and Harry Potter - And Sherlock Holmes TOO.
The bible is NOT a historical refererence - it is a book of religious MYTH and we KNOW that some things in the bible are simply NOT TRUE - example - there was NO worldwide flood as described in the bible.
And sorry - but the majority of xtian sects - representing over 75% of the xtians in the world - have already accepted evolution. Unlike the small sects made up of stupid people, the larger sects cannot risk another round of being wrong - like that of the earth being the rigid center of the Universe - which it is also not.
Yes - you are right - what is said in the bible - "DIDN'T HAPPEN"
Even the Bible teaches evolution. So why do some people still have trouble accepting evolution?
The "less" that can directly be attributed to the "god" - the less they accept it. In their world - everything came from the god - unless it is something bad - then it came from other religions!
