Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

Originally posted by edmc^2
As for the source that I quoted - can you despute them? Just because the source are old(er) that it's no longer valid. If so again please disprove them.


ty,
edmc2

You may want to read the article in New Science that your snippet came from. Also the one directly behind it.

tiny.cc...

Originally posted by edmc^2

Do you think this issue is now resolved? The more they know the bigger the problem becomes.

Here's the latest so far:

“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. ..... – snipit from wiki link provided above.

A
Ty,
edmc2

later...

Update on Szostak's work

Home / July 3rd, 2010; Vol.178 #1 / Feature
Life from scratch
Relaunching biology from the beginning
By Charles Petit
July 3rd, 2010; Vol.178 #1 (p. 22
A short stroll from Boston's Charles River, behind a sheath of blue glass on the seventh floor of a Harvard Medical School research building, Jack Szostak is getting set to replay the greatest event on Earth.

He and his 15-member team of graduate students and young postdoctoral research fellows are well on their way to starting biology from scratch - more than 3.5 billion years after it first emerged.

Rest of the story:
www.sciencenews.org...

Neil deGrasse Tyson Stupid Humans
Goes along with Lloyd Pye Genetic Engineering Theory


2 to 4 percent difference between Humans and Chimps
is it proven ?
Sources

anthro.palomar.edu...
anthro.palomar.edu...

Lloyd Pye - Ancient Genetic Engineering (possibility)


just to Note .. Lloyd Pye means when he says Annunuki it is a sentence not a word in Sumerian text , it Means ,, Those That Came From Heaven to Earth (Royal Blood) either its God ,Angels , or Aliens (pick one) but we can agree on some Higher Being ... I have Noticed Many times that Members of ATS have completely are Confused of the Abbreviation An nu Nuki
www.websters-dictionary-online.org... ch#906



from Teachers Domain (Video) Human Chromosome 2 (want to learn watch this Video ) ! says Just about the same thing Llyod Pye Said !!! Debunk That !!

The Video Human Chromosome 2
anthro.palomar.edu...


Lloyd Pye - Climate and Maps change of Evolution? Adaption


The what Map of the World is Correct Game !
maps-world.cn...

Creationism = Evolution goes together ! or we would Not have Mutants
would we ? Real Ones! that is want to Look Further!! in to Reality

Please Look Below!!! Amazing ( just a few websites for reference )
egotvonline.com...
www.oddee.com...

Daniel Tammet - The Boy With The Incredible Brain


and now from scientific Discovery ! top 10 Useless body Parts!
science.discovery.com...

The Real SuperHumans part 1 of 10


[edit on 24-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by edmc^2

 

other than one very recent wiki article snippet the most recent source you cited is from 1982. Not exactly cutting edge my friend. As anyone who studies Anthropology can attest, new finds come in with astounding frequency and we are constantly updating and expanding our models so using 30+ year old information to back you up is only going to float in the dead sea. Yes, I will be the first to admit that we do not know everything there is or will be to learn regarding evolution and our own history but the majority of us are nowhere near arrogant enough to claim we have all the answers and are open minded enough to allow for and accept new and verifiable data. See the last 4 words of my previous sentence. If anyone ever shows me legitimate and reproducible scientific evidence of creationism I'll gladly shred my diploma.

Since you've asked for it, here u go:

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years

“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.

–

With regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, Robert Shapiro from New York University says:

“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.

–

Talking about RNA molecules, Prof. Shapiro says that:

“no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites". - Scientific American 2007 June p 48.”

As for the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks, he said that it

“is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck” Scientific American 2007 June p 47, 49-50.

–

Here's another probability comment from a researcher, Hubert P. Yockey, who supports evolution. He says:

“It is impossible that the origin of life was 'proteins first'” Information Theory, Evolution and the Theory of Life – by Hubert P. Yockey, 25505 p 182.

–

Scientific Note: RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. Now let's assume despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did somehow appear by CHANCE in the SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME. How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating self-sustaining type of life?

Do you know? Any idea?

What do the experts say on these matters?

Dr. Carol Cleveland a member of NASA says:

“The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low”

She continuous:

“Yet, most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of the proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions the coordination will somehow take care of itself”

As for the current theories of how these building blocks could have arisen by chance, she says:

“None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”

– www.nasa.gov...'s_working_definition.html

Bottom line:

Lets assume for all intents and purposes, that by means of a carefully designed and directed experiments, scientists successfully created a complex molecule. Then from there were somehow able to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell.

Would you call it proof of “abiogenesis” / “evolution”?

I expect evolutionist will say of course! But to me, it means this:
They accomplished something truly amazing – but is it a PROOF that the cell could be made by CHANCE or by ACCIDENT?

The fact that the experiments conducted so many times over were or are in controlled environments with all the proper tools, proper guidelines and 'properly assumed' environments (to create life), – shows quite the opposite:

THAT LIFE CAN'T BE CREATED BY CHANCE BUT RATHER BY AN INTELLECT.

Peter, MrXYZ, rnaa, et al, kindly please consider the following Facts and Questions and let me know your honest assessment:

Which one is logical or illogical reasoning?

Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth early environment and the molecules produced represents the building blocks of life, WHOM DOES THE scientists who performed the experiment represent? DOES HE/SHE represent BIND CHANCE or INTELLIGENT ENTITY?

Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it's highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improvable that RNA proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and able to work together.

Question: What takes greater faith – to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is a product of an intelligent mind?

Side note for Pauligirl (thanks for the links)

On the study or experiment that Prof Jack Szostak and his 15-member team of graduate students and young postdoctoral research fellows:

It will prove one thing (to me as far as the origin of life is concern). The obvious – that life can't be created by chance and that life will only come from life.

(I'm hoping though that they will somehow come up with a new material that can help to solve the energy problem or a new kind of medicine)

www.sciencenews.org...

cont...

...
As for this statement:

“If anyone ever shows me legitimate and reproducible scientific evidence of creationism I'll gladly shred my diploma.”

I'm not sure what you are looking for but what about the “miracle of life” - the birth of a child for one.

Wolfenz – are you saying that a Savant condition is proof of evolution?

Or is it an abnormal condition in the human genome? And that this conditions makes some to have super human abilities / capabilities in certain aspects of life but lacking on others?

Or is it possible that humans posses these abilities all along but that due to imperfections of the human genome we are not capable accessing these abilities. That only by abnormal circumstances (I.e – accidents, gene mutations,etc) these abilities are triggered?

As for the ones that are not savant with super human abilities– is it possible that their genes adapted to their environment thru proper training and constant exposure? Thus they are able to survive (adapt)under abnormal conditions?

Note:

Imagine this - a colony humans living in the moon for let's say 5-10 years. Then bring them back here on earth. What do you think will happen to their bodies. They will prolly be crawling like babies for a while until they adapt to the present environment. Now reverse it, let's say a colony of human on one of the planets where the gravity is twice that of the earth. Bring them back here on earth, what do you think they are capable of? They will be probably be able to do super human activities – prolly be able to jump twice as high as that of normal human or twice as strong as the the strongest human on earth. But in time their body will adapt again to their present condition (environment). This shows that the human body is magnificently designed to be very flexible and adaptable.

Now to an evolutionists, he or she will consider this or will reason that “evolution' was responsible for the changes. But true logic says, no, it's adaptation.

Remember, our body is capable of adaptation to its environment. Through advance medicine, advance body training, advance nutrition’s and genetic engineering it seems that man can engineer a human with “super-human” abilities. But when pushed to the limit – the body, although adaptable will break! On the other hand a sedentary lifestyle – no exercise, eating unhealthy foods leads to the breakdown of the body also.

So again if “evolution” is the force behind these changes/mutations (good/bad) – what are they changing into?

True they might be stronger, faster, taller, more muscular, slender, heavier, fatter, slower, disease prone, etc but they are STILL HUMANS – possessing human traits (such as love, justice, power and wisdom (Gen 1:26)

science.jrank.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.nsbri.org...

Concl:
Again logical reasoning says that:

1) Life can only come from life. An ever-existing intelligent life source.
2) Changes in the human physiology is due to the influences of its involvement (natural or engineered)

Illogic reasoning say that:

1. Life can can come from non-living material by chance.
2. Changes in the human physiology are products of evolution.

What's your honest assessment?
Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2

As for the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks, he said that it

“is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck” Scientific American 2007 June p 47, 49-50.

–

Here's another probability comment from a researcher, Hubert P. Yockey, who supports evolution. He says:

“It is impossible that the origin of life was 'proteins first'” Information Theory, Evolution and the Theory of Life – by Hubert P. Yockey, 25505 p 182.

–

cont...

Ah yes... no math, not even logic or common sense.
Just some random quotes. Including the above:
Look at that one in particular:

"is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck”

Yes, emdc, after something has happened we dont talk about propabilites of it happening anymore. But we can say it happening or not was good luck/bad luck. Of course the actual propabilities are interesting, to guesstimate if it happened somewhere else, or to guesstimate wich of the currently proposed models is the most likely (Nobody claims to know how it happened. But smart guys are trying to figure it out. We call this science)

As for morality:
If your only reason to follow a particular rule is that you fear punishment if you do otherwise, I honestly pity you. That is not morality. That is obedience.

Talking about RNA molecules, Prof. Shapiro says that: “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites". - Scientific American 2007 June p 48.”

Of course this changed last year.

Scientific Note: RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. Now let's assume despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did somehow appear by CHANCE in the SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME. How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating self-sustaining type of life

That was an ignorant note. There are autocatalytic RNA-molecules that need no proteins.

Some people's lack of knowledge of evolution scares me!! Our education system is clearly failing if people start claiming evolution must be wrong because it's really "adaption" instead of "evolution". When evolution is nothing but a continuous adaption over a VERY VERY VERY long time.

The ridiculous part is, their own theory of some super-being creating everything has not even 1% of the evidence we have for evolution. Yet just because it fits their world view better, they continue to try and pretend evolution is just as likely as creationism.

Everyone criticizing evolution should watch this, yes, every single episode. Because when you've done so and still pretend the theory of a cosmic space daddy creating the world in 7 days is more likely, I will officially give up on you. No one can help you then because only a very irrational and totally brainwashed person could possibly ignore the facts mentioned in those clips.

reply to post by edmc^2

Wolfenz – are you saying that a Savant condition is proof of evolution?

sorry for the late reply

to Answer your question!!! Please and I mean Please watch this section of the video The real Super Humans!
a Autistic Savant Nope ! not at all ya i know at least 10 min of your time Rudiger Gamm changed and made up his own algorithm!!!! to solve.. the problem ... in this video a Savant is not able to do this ..

what i am saying is once in a while theres a coding change interruption in genetics's that cause a Mutation by a Natural cause whether be a Virus or cross linked junk DNA even Radiation or a man made Drug chemical.. ? ! for Better or for Worse a sign of evolution Maybe ? or a Creation Maybe ? or it could be both.. a rewired design

just think of this say 200 thousand years ago an early stage Pregnant Woman or a Fertile Woman not yet conceived.. eats a plant that cause a birth defect and the defect is irreversible in the Dna structure.. and Caused a Mutant.. is it possible maybe.. or how about living in distressed conditions best way to look into is India! as India has the Highest rate of Intellect people and the Most Diseased.. and 2nd most crowded Country! in the World ..



en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
well you asked! did you not ?

interesting Beautiful mind somewhat like John Forbes Nash, Jr.

Rudiger Gamm


The Real SuperHumans part 6 of 10 30sec mark


Rüdiger Gamm
en.wikipedia.org...

I would write more but my time is up got to go to work LOL laters...



[edit on 26-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by Wolfenz


oops forgot this is evolution ? creation ? Both ?

Well we are not just one living being we are made up of Many different cells that communicate in a network ... that work as One ..
something like the Simple yet effective example

Tubiflex Worms that Work as one



one thing in mind is Animals adapting to the surroundings even so much as to Camouflage themselves in the Skin & Fur patterns , or Physical body structure as mimicking.. to Prey or Defense like the stick insects my best example is the Octopus from texture morphing to Color Changes

a Few Animal Camouflage Pics == Interesting
animals.howstuffworks.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


is this Evolution ? Creationism ? I would Think Both..

Mutagen
en.wikipedia.org...

Nature of mutagens

Mutagens are usually chemical compounds or ionizing radiation. Mutagens can be divided into different categories according to their effect on DNA replication:

* Some mutagens act as base analogs and get inserted into the DNA strand during replication in place of the substrates.
* Some react with DNA and cause structural changes that lead to miscopying of the template strand when the DNA is replicated.
* Some work indirectly by causing the cells to synthesize chemicals that have the direct mutagenic effect.

The Ames test is one method to determine how mutagenic an agent is.
[edit] Examples

* Ionizing radiation, for example X-rays, gamma rays and alpha particles
* Ultraviolet, electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light but longer than x-rays
* Base analog, which can substitute for DNA bases and cause copying errors
* Deaminating agents such as nitrous acid
* Intercalating agents such as ethidium bromide
* Alkylating agents such as ethylnitrosourea
* Transposon, a section of DNA that undergoes autonomous fragment relocation/multiplication
* Alkaloid plants, such as those from Vinca species
* Bromine and some compounds that contain bromine in their chemical structure
* Sodium azide, an azide salt that is a common reagent in organic synthesis and a component in many car airbag systems
* Psoralen combined with ultraviolet radiation causes DNA cross-linking and hence chromosome breakage
* Benzene, an industrial solvent and precursor in the production of drugs, plastics, synthetic rubber and dyes

the question for Evolutionist and Creationist is to look at the Natural Grown Animals or Plants that we considered as Food
Food that you would eat made for Humans & Animals ? The Purpose , Flavor , Taste.. Smell ,Color, the Needed Nutrients vitamins minerals Carbs. fats. proteins etc..
en.wikipedia.org...

or The Medicine from plants why are they here..
My Belief there is a Possible Cure for just about every thing just finding the right Formula in Chemicals produced in plants ... or Non Bio like Stone.. Metal..
en.wikipedia.org...

Made by a God or Gods.. ? That what i would like to know ..
Ever wonder why that most Fruits and Vegetables are made to be handled with the Average Human Hand ? Apples Oranges Grapes BANANAS , Carrots cucumbers Peppers , and all the Necessity of Vitamins Minerals there's something to think about..

Food consumption is the Top if the list for Evolution & Creationism Theorist
how is it be where did it come from for what reason and purpose ..
The WHY question.. Game...



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

This is probably said already, But...!

I'll say it again...

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with creation. They can both exist at the same time without a single issue, ever.

I do understand that people keep coming up with these threads, really.

What I do not understand is that they are not yet against ATS T&C.
The slogan of this site. "Deny ignorance" These threads are just that... Ignorant.

Almost always the OP does not even shows the tiniest clue of what the theory of evolution actually represents and why and how it works and came to what it is right now.

It is a joke...

I agree, the discussion of how we came to be is an ongoing, interesting topic. Why ? Please tell me why this ignorance has been tolerated and still is, for so long ?

I think that it is absolutely ridiculous.

PS.
This has not been directed at you OP, No offense.

Even the word in the Bible for 'created' is debated against as meaning what its been translated as.

In Hebrew language, the word we translate from is 'bara' and we translate this as 'created'.

But 'bara' can mean more of 'filling and fattening' then 'something coming from nothing (created)'.

Bara is also used to describe the animal fat during sacrifices....the material that 'fills and fattens' the animal.

So in Genesis...some may read it as 'and God filled and fattened the heavens and earth'.

Im in agreement with the ones that say creation and evolution can go hand in hand. I actually prefer the word 'emanation'. Taking on new forms....something emanates itself into, something else....to and fro...from one to the other....cycles.

reply to post by edmc^2

Imagine this - a colony humans living in the moon for let's say 5-10 years. Then bring them back here on earth. What do you think will happen to their bodies. They will prolly be crawling like babies for a while until they adapt to the present environment. Now reverse it, let's say a colony of human on one of the planets where the gravity is twice that of the earth. Bring them back here on earth, what do you think they are capable of? They will be probably be able to do super human activities – prolly be able to jump twice as high as that of normal human or twice as strong as the the strongest human on earth. But in time their body will adapt again to their present condition (environment). This shows that the human body is magnificently designed to be very flexible and adaptable. Now to an evolutionists, he or she will consider this or will reason that “evolution' was responsible for the changes. But true logic says, no, it's adaptation.

DC Comics
Superman hmmm True Adaption it is!! Simple Figure is !

take someone say that lives in Florida and Someone from Alaska that lived there entire lives in that one Area and Then Switch them ! for a Week they will be having a Hard time Adjusting but they will Adapt!


Here is something to think about ! I have watched this Documentary
as it was made by discovery or the history channel one of the 2 (ill try to remember the name of it and Find it and post it ) anyways this Team of Scientist decided to make a Atmospheric Tank the same Environment as it would of been 5million years ago rich Oxygen the Main ingredient with other Atmospheric Conditions of that particular time to their Amazement
The Fish they had in the Tank where twice as Large then Normal ... im not sure what type of fish Catfish? i think.. Man i wish i remember it had in this Documentary

Here is a Documentary that is similar

called Animal Farm Risk of Genetic Engineering
it shows mice that glow green , bulls that had double muscle mass.. kinda Dr moureu kind of thing ... Fish twice as large etc..


Adaption & Climate Atmospheric conditions IS another formula of life besides your Consumption of Liquids and Food & Life Style

i think i found it im still looking for the Atmospheric Tank Experiment tho..

a Quick Look 4.50 mark



I would like to know why the Big Three Races are so Different Physically
Asian , African , Caucasian as there is other races Oddities

yet some Scientist LOL claim we came from one Continent Called Africa







[edit on 29-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

Ok I quite like the idea nad the diagrams used. it does seem logical enough - the thing is, more often than not, evolutionist science doesn't like the idea of a creator being put into it.... The thing is, some people found things inconcievable in the past, like flying or the invention of the telephone, the discovery of the atom (didnt they think it was square at one point?). I mean, you call this science, a be all and end all, but let me tell you something, there is far more out there.
It isnt just a redundant happening that we have an intuition telling us there is something else, it isnt redundant that we want to know more about our surroundings...... The very reason any of these people want to observe reality is because there is something else out there which had made our intuition - why would anyone care? to improve existence and humanity? This is an outright excuse.
These people are lying to themselves. If we are going to put physics into the pot that I think we all need to be reminded how peculiar it is in that small world and not much can be explained as to why it behaves that way - you look for safe answers because it comforts you. I am not saying an evolution hasnt happened, and I dont think an intelligent being created us, this is the bull. It is far more than itelligent creation, it is something that surpasses it by not actually having human capability, or thinking tools, but its our arrogance to think that the One thinks the same or thinks at all.
I do not believe this.
Just meditate for a while. Some answers dont come from words. As already said - if only a few messages enter the brain there is a lot of reality missing from the picture. And if this is the case, well, science is a bunch of descriptives and concepts that actually cant even come close to the properties of what actually 'IS' something in itself to make it itself, to make anything else and so on. It is only measurable in relation to something else, the same way things can only exist when there is space, which also means that, it is very easy to have something out of nothing, and that as matter isnt solid nor spirit (in that, our only beggining concept of spirit would be 'air', as we think of air as just space, but in science is substance), there is nothing to say what the mechanics of the smaller world really are when the mechanics of the whole thing, behind the thing, cannot be explained, therefore evolution or creationism and anything else cannot be explained by human imagination as we ARE the creation.
I think therefore I am.

I had this clip for a while so i would like to share it with you

this guy named Joe Lewels, Ph.D. has the same reasonable logic step between evolution to creationism between the Bible and science fact .. in his Personal Opinion Theory as to why ...

It May sound way out there.. but it does put some deep thought ..
Skeptics like my self would love to here him and question him

DNA The Veil of Reality


I might read his book called Rulers of Earth

or one great skeptic named Carol Sagen book
Called Dragons of Eden

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by debunky


'back...
debunky, you said:

Ah yes... no math, not even logic or common sense.
Just some random quotes. Including the above:
Look at that one in particular:
"is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck”.

Any idea why the Dr. Cleveland said the above? I'm sure there's a reason why she said what she said about the impossibility or improbability of life appearing from nothing by means of chance.
I do have an idea though. But before I say what it is, let's do some simple probability math.

Let's take a look at a simple card game: the 'bridge'

What are the chances of having all 13 spades in a 52-card deck dealt to you? The odds that on the first card drawn you will get a spade are, obviously, 13/52. Of the 51 cards left, 12 are spades, and so the odds become 12/51. And so on, 11/50, 10/49, right on down to 1/40 for the final card. Multiply all of these fractions together and you will find that the chance of being dealt all 13 spades is one in over 635,000,000,000.

Now, let's expand this probability further:

remember, we are dealing with a mere 52-card deck, and mind you, we are not asking the deck of cards to give us the spades in their correct numerical order.

But what if we say, we need the right card dealt the first time? What do think the odds are now? That requirement would compound the probability manyfold because the odds then become 1/52 to start with and not 13/52. If, the odds then become, not 12/51 but 1/51; then 1/50 (not 11/50), and so forth. The total probability of drawing all of the spades in order would be the result of multiplying all of these figures together: 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50 x 1/49 x 1/48 x 1/47 x 1/46 x 1/45 x 1/44 x 1/43 x 1/42 x 1/41 x 1/40. What kind of odds does that give?

One in about 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Apply this probability to the origin of life, then you will understand the statement by the good doctor mentioned earlier. In fact if you apply this probability law even to the simplest form of life – the Dunaliella of the order Volvocales it boggles the mind (I e. prokaryotic vs Eukaryoutic cells).

Here's some more probability (there's more but the conclusion is still the same).

1 out 10^50*, 1 out of 10^130**, 1out of 6900*** 1 out of 40,000****

*one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

**Hubert Yockey.

***Neglecting the effect of the factorial, this amounts only to one part in 10^6900, still not a bet one would advise a friend to take. For comparison, there are about 1079 atoms in the whole visible universe, in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This comparison shows in our opinion that life must be a cosmological phenomenon, not at all something which originated in a warm little terrestrial pond. – Sec 12. Improbability of life’s origins: cosmic evolution

www.actionbioscience.org...

****Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) gave up, saying:

“These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” pp 30, 31.

you also said:

Yes, emdc, after something has happened we dont talk about propabilites of it happening anymore. But we can say it happening or not was good luck/bad luck. Of course the actual propabilities are interesting, to guesstimate if it happened somewhere else, or to guesstimate wich of the currently proposed models is the most likely (Nobody claims to know how it happened. But smart guys are trying to figure it out. We call this science)

I agree if it is 'something' that is already well established, proven by facts “we dont talk about propabilites of it happening anymore”, but as far as 'evolution' is concerned it is still open to much debate and questionings (even amongst evolutionist). Under such circumstances probability is a great tool to arrive at a logical conclusion. And as you can see, judging from the calculations made from different scientific disciplines (biologist, Astrophysicist, astronomer, etc), one thing is very obvious (imho) and can't be ignored. That per the probability results, life happening by chance is not supported by logic and mathematical/scientific facts. That is, that life can only come from life. And that life can't occur by chance.

On the other hand Creation has no problem explaining the origin of life whether by logic or scientific reasoning or by the things that surrounds us.

Notice this powerful argument that has led many to believe in a Creator - “[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Romans 1:20)

Like the apostle Paul we could see the beauties of creation, the wondrous variety of life and the awesome starry heavens, and in them discern some of the qualities of the one who created them. Modern science helps us to see how intricately designed natural things are, what power and wisdom were necessary to bring them into existence. Hence, in some ways the natural world today gives an even more powerful witness to the existence of God.

True, there are those who reject this reasoning. But what alternative explanation do they have for the order that exists in the natural world? Do you have a logical explanation debunky? Again using probability laws to prove the improbability/impossibility of a theory happening is to ignore reality and cling to “blind faith” by rejecting the facts (imho)?

cont...

....
As for science, like what I said before, science or for that matter, scientific achievement is not at issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics have ushered in the computer age, which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats, even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from the micro to the macro.

The issue is when illogical (unscientific) reasoning or scientific discipline becomes a matter of “faith”, then just like religion or creationism#, without a solid foundation it becomes a form of fanaticism and 'blind faith'.

#Scientific Creationism (i.e. Little Rock trial).

Take for example:
1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.

Evidence shows the earth is about 4B years old.

2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

According to geologists, they have classified the rocks that make up our globe into three basic categories: (1) igneous; (2) sedimentary and (3) metamorphic

Interestingly, I'm not sure if you noticed it or even aware of it, the word ‘chance’ has been personified as if we were talking about a “causal agent, - an entity”.

This what biophysicist Donald M. MacKay noted when he said that “chance” somehow made a transformation into

“...an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”

Do you think there's truth on what he said?

Here's another similar observation from Robert C. Sproul, he points out:

“By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”

Most notable of all, Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, used this chance-equals-cause line of reasoning.

Notice what he said:

“Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,”

. He further wrote:

“Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance.”

Here's the kicker, ‘BY chance.’ Monod does what many others do—he makes or elevates 'chance' to a creative principle. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.

In fact, dictionaries show that “chance” is “the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings.” Thus, if one speaks about life coming about by 'chance', he is saying that it came about by a causal power that is not known. Could it be that some are virtually spelling “Chance” with a capital letter—in effect saying, Creator? What do you think?

In other words: Abiogenesis/Evolution = Chance = Causal Agent

On the other hand:
Creation = Creator (an Intelligent Entity)

Which one makes sense? To me creation makes sense.

(btw, majority of the people I've quoted are believers of evolution)

Side note – dictionary diffinition of “chance”
1.
a. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
b. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.
2.The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain?
3.An accidental or unpredictable event.
4.A favorable set of circumstances; an opportunity: a chance to escape.
5.A risk or hazard; a gamble: took a chance that the ice would hold me.
6.Games. A raffle or lottery ticket.
7.Baseball. An opportunity to make a putout or an assist that counts as an error if unsuccessful.
adj.
Caused by or ascribable to chance; unexpected, random, or casual: a chance encounter; a chance result.

www.answers.com...

next:
[quoteAs for morality:

If your only reason to follow a particular rule is that you fear punishment if you do otherwise, I honestly pity you. That is not morality. That is obedience.

First off, I’m glad you raised this topic, for this is where imho “evolution” stands in sharp contrast with believers of (true) creation. That is, where the sense of morality came/comes from? How does evolution define morality? Can it even define it? Is it just a chemical reaction to an event or is it something that is part of us – a conscience. A sense of right and wrong. Who put it there or is it just a byproduct of evolution? Chance? If it is, why is it there? What is its purpose?

Here's one admission of an attempt to explain it:

“It seems pretty clear that an evolutionary explanation will not provide a foundation for morality. An attempt would be to say that we ought to observe morality because moral conduct enhances the survival chances of our genes. But why should we care about that?“

www.humanities.mq.edu.au...

Sadly though some who profess to be Christians are themselves guilty of showing the opposite – immorality. Of which Jesus said “get away from me you workers of lawlessness” (Matt 7:22,23).

One senator said (John McClellan):

“In my judgment, some churches no longer demand a truly high standard of integrity and morality today. They don’t have the same ideals of Christian living that were observed and practiced in the past.” And when asked whether this was a factor in the increase in crime, he replied: “There’s no question about it.”—U.S. News & World Report

There are more abstract side of man that evolution have a hard time (if not impossible) explaining.

cont...

....
Consider one more – what is (agape) love?

Biblical definition:

"Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." (1 Corinthian 13:4-8) These are not just blind obedience to a set of rules but they are part of us (whether you believe it or not).

How does evolution define love? Can it define it?

And finally: spirituality.

Have you ever wonder, why man has a spiritual side? Admit it or not it is there. Again, how does evolution define the spiritual side of man? Can it? Is it a product of evolution, a chemical reaction to a need or to an event or was it part of man? The fact that majority of mankind have some type of spirituality in one form or another, leaves evolution in the dark as to why it is there.

Some will say it's due to weak minds that people will cling to a 'higher power' than themselves.

But is it?

As for “fear” of “punishment” - you must be thinking about the UN-biblical teaching of “hellfire”. Surprise! No such thing, no such place. Please let me know if you want me to explain this further (U2U if you prefer).


Ty,
edmc2


Next time – feedback to the evolution 101 videos (finally finished watching all of them – blast from the past).

reply to post by Wolfenz


Wolfenz - thanks for the vids - very informative and interesting.
In fact there's a show today in the Discovery channel dealing with 'Superhumans'. I'll check it out when I have the chance to do so.

Q:
How safe are the genetically engineered food product? Side effects?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

Thus, if one speaks about life coming about by 'chance', he is saying that it came about by a causal power that is not known. Could it be that some are virtually spelling “Chance” with a capital letter—in effect saying, Creator? What do you think?

Yes, it came by causal power that is not known yet. But I prefer to call it "laws of chemistry", not creator.

We dont know how first life arised, so it is meaningless to talk about any probabilities.