Evolution Vs. God

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Can you deal with the fact that I was asked a reason for why I believe what I believe?

The part I'm having difficulty with is your double standard. You apparently believe scripture worthy of submission as evidence, but actual scientific documentation is beneath you. Not to mention you've ignored both the woodpecker and the other link that Frog posted.

This is an "ORIGINS And CREATIONISM" thread. You use your sources, and I will use mine which cover many areas.

See above.

You have a lot of nerve taking me to task for answering a question about how I come to age of the earth.

Then I don't expect you to criticize our evidence anymore. If you're just going to lower your expectations every time it's your turn to cough up documentation, I don't expect to see you sneering at us anymore.

UnifiedSerenity

I have been more than kind in my replies to you and yet you turn to snippy, mocking, rude comments about my comments and beliefs. I said perfectly clearly that the first age of the EARTH could be millions of years old, but that this age is probably not older than 10k years. Evo's have not proved the age either especially when you use their unreliable dating methods and circular arguments.

Again, believe what you want, but it is not proved.

edit on 12-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

Believe what you want but you are wrong. Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective
The age of the earth is quite accurate.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Mathematicians say anything with 10 to the 50th is impossible. They talk about probability and reality. What we are talking is 10 to the 195th to get just 1 simple protein let alone the complex proteins that are in the ranges of 1 in 10 to the 495th etc..

Winning the lottery is way easier than evolution and do you play it believing you will win? If I said, Here is a billion dollars and all you have to do is spin this wheel with 100 numbers and this other wheel with 30 numbers and get all 100 numbers to line up in sequence and this other wheel to line up in sequence with no mistakes and you can have as many tries as you want, you have to pay me $10,000.00. Would you do it? Of course not, because it's impossible.



There is no proof of gradual change from one kind to another. Darwin admitted this as to other scientists.

Mark Ridley :

The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies.
"Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist 25 (June 1981): 831

N. Heribert-Nilsson

It has been argued that the series of paleontological finds is too intermittent, too full of "missing links" to serve as a convincing proof. If a postulated ancestral type is not found, it is simply stated that it has not so far been found. Darwin himself often used this argument and in his time it was perhaps justifiable. But it has lost its value through the immense advances of paleobiology in the twentieth century. . . . The true situation is that those fossils have not been found which were expected. Just where new branches are supposed to fork off from the main stem it has been impossible to find the connecting types.
'Synthetische Artbildung' (Verlag CWH Gleerup, 1953), p. 1188

Lewin:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.

At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. ... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." Lewin, R. (1980) "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

Wesson:

"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." R. Wesson (1991) Beyond Natural Selection MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206

Michael Denton:

Not only has palaeontology failed to come up with the fossil 'missing links' which Darwin anticipated, but hypothetical reconstructions of major evolutionary developments -- such as that linking birds to reptiles -- are beginning to look more like fantasies than serious conjectures.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1996)

If evolution is so terribly flawed, I'd hate to think what God is. Evolution gave us fingers to hold guns with, and God gave us the inclination to use them. Figure that one out.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

But you have never done the math on how many times the dice have been rolled. I gave it a go one night and IIRC I came up with 1 in 4. That isn't taking into account panspermia.

reply to post by daskakik


I believe even panspermia is a more realistic theory than "God did it".

reply to post by daskakik


Look, if you think you can flip the coin to come out a billion times heads and that isn't even close to the numbers needed to get life for a simple cell, then you and I live in two different worlds of reality. You have incredible faith. I challenge you to video you flipping a coin 100 times and it coming up heads every time. Just video you doing it, no stops, keep rolling and post it.

You know this is a fairy tale to even think you can get those chances to work out. You are talking literally 1 to 10 in 110,000 ! I wish I lived near you to film this. I tell you what. I will fill a bucket with white sand and 1 black sand. I will blindfold you and tell you to stick your hand in the kiddy pool and pull out the black grain. If you do it, here is $5000.00. Just pay me $500.00 to try it, and I will give you as many goes as you want. It is NOT going to happen and you have much better odds doing that than 1 in 10 to the 110,000!

Maybe I will do a man on the street test. I will ask them if they would like to win 1000 dollars. Pay me 10 to try it, and I will have a big bag of sand just like I said all white with one grain of black in there somewhere. You think anyone will give me their 10 bucks? Anyone?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Like I said, you can't wrap your head around it because you keep thinking of it is a one off shot.

If a could record a video of billions of people flipping coins for billions of years then the odds change.

That side of the equation is always left out when mathematical impossibility is presented as proof.

daskakik
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

But you have never done the math on how many times the dice have been rolled. I gave it a go one night and IIRC I came up with 1 in 4. That isn't taking into account panspermia.

I am getting very tired of the often given "mathematical impossibility argument" since it's simply ENTIRELY WRONG. Why he constantly repeats it...I don't know.

Let's take his example of the number of wheels with 100s of numbers each. So you have to hit the right number with each one to get to a correct, PARTICULAR sequence of numbers across all the wheels.

Assuming this is essentially IMPOSSIBLE is entirely correct!

However, this is not what happens. To take the wheel analogy again, and the way he argues:

NO MATTER HOW you turn the wheels, and no matter what particular number each wheel will come to a stop at...it will always result in SOME number. In the same way as there will in all likelihood mostly be ONE lottery winner in a lottery.

If I were to argue like him I would pick the particular lottery winner and say it's mathematical IMPOSSIBLE (or nearly impossible) that this particular person won, seeing that the odds for winning may be anywhere close to 1:300,000,000....so I say there must be something divine at work (or magic, whatever)..because its otherwise non explainable how this person can have won the lottery! (The funny thing of course, locked at it backwards it is actually an accurate statement to make) - BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT that every week some person may win the lottery.

When I roll my bunch of wheels and it turns out 22-62-18-837-12-172-127-4-18-199-61-623-2-561-12, to PREDICT this correctly, the odds of it are basically ZERO. But this doesn't make the appearance of 22-62-18-837-12-172-127-4-18-199-61-623-2-561-12 an "impossible event came true".

The error here is to look at the end-result and then do a false "backward analysis" presuming that the end-result would be IMPOSSIBLE, there is simply no way that 22-62-18-837 ... etc.... would come to reality based on the odds.

(By the way, regardless, BAD analogy because evolution has nothing to do with randomness. The above analogies only to demonstrate their [creationists] weird arguments attempting to mathematically disprove evolution...and fail doing so constantly and don't understand why.)

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So it's pretty clear you have no concept of basic chemistry, or the fact that Earth has been here for billions of years.

You must try to comprehend time on a scale that isn't really easy to imagine, which is why you're frustrated.

We experience life for a few decades then we die. I have trouble comprehending the existence of my 88 year old grandmother. That's less than a century. The Earth is about 4.5 billions years old. 45 million centuries. Try to imagine chemistry happening in the oceans of early Earth, on those kinds of time scales.

Self replicating proteins can come from the basic building blocks of amino acids. It just takes a very very long time.

If I was picking grains of sand out of your bucket for hundreds of millions of years, I would eventually get the black grain. And you're comparison is irrelevant because the odds of picking any grain of sand are exactly the same.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by daskakik

 

Look, if you think you can flip the coin to come out a billion times heads and that isn't even close to the numbers needed to get life for a simple cell, then you and I live in two different worlds of reality. You have incredible faith. I challenge you to video you flipping a coin 100 times and it coming up heads every time. Just video you doing it, no stops, keep rolling and post it.

You know this is a fairy tale to even think you can get those chances to work out. You are talking literally 1 to 10 in 110,000 ! I wish I lived near you to film this. I tell you what. I will fill a bucket with white sand and 1 black sand. I will blindfold you and tell you to stick your hand in the kiddy pool and pull out the black grain. If you do it, here is $5000.00. Just pay me $500.00 to try it, and I will give you as many goes as you want. It is NOT going to happen and you have much better odds doing that than 1 in 10 to the 110,000!

Maybe I will do a man on the street test. I will ask them if they would like to win 1000 dollars. Pay me 10 to try it, and I will have a big bag of sand just like I said all white with one grain of black in there somewhere. You think anyone will give me their 10 bucks? Anyone?

edit on 12-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

Chemical reactions are not random and therefore mathematical probablities are irrelevant.

And - even if we assume that a certain element of randomness comes into play (say, that particular mutations MAY in fact be springing up randomly)...the *whole* process of evolution would offset this randomness since at the end only the "good" and beneficial mutations would survive. In other words, nature/evolution actually would turn this randomness into something of order and sense/meaning....and it does this by itself. HOW the actual mutation(s) at some point came into existence is almost irrelevant, some say it's cosmic radiation etc. which causes "defects" in DNA spanning mutations. As said, irrelevant, what counts is what follows.

seabag
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Are we really going to have to put up with a Soapbox thread on creation from you EVERY week?

No!

You don’t have to participate.

I have a mind and logic of my own. Creation is rubbish....

That’s simply your opinion. 84% of the world population has faith (1/3 are Christians). You’re in the minority, friend.

Where did you get the figure that 84% of the population has faith? If you are using statisticts then you are way off mark. What kind of faith are you talking? I believe in a supreme being but not that it created us. It may have created the heavens, the stars, the dark energy.... my to spend time to create untold amounts of life, individually? I have a hard time believing that. The bible was and still is a tool written by man, to control man, and defraud man of money and lively hood. God did not write a book, the bible is not better than the snake oil that the hocksters used to sell to cure all of your ills. If anyone ever come up with proof or video evidence of god or a supreme being who created everything then I might start to change my mind.. but most likely it will be a Photoshopped or altered image to serve ones own purpose. Organized religion is the worst thing to ever happen to this world as it has caused more war... death.... and division than all the land wars of history combined. Priests can be pedophiles, murderers and adulterers and yet they can still retain a job in the churches spreading the word of their lord while at the same time sinning and lying... it's too much for me to swallow. Islam, Catholicism, Christianity and the offshoots thereof are jokes. They are lies that are interpreted from books written by men who are snake oil salesmen. If they are right then I guess that everyone who died before the bible was written just ceased to exist since they could have neither sinned nor been baptized to be either forgiven by god or accepted by the devil. Humans have been on this earth far longer than the bible or Qur'an.

UnifiedSerenity

Lewin:

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." Lewin, R. (1980) "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

Francisco Ayala

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

Oh those kwazy kreationions...quote mining again

reply to post by Pauligirl


Another example of creationists deliberately lying for jesus?

I suspect the OP knows what he's saying are lies and this is all some elaborate troll to make Christians look like morons.

reply to post by ZeroReady


You know, you just don't get it do you? It's not even as simple as my little example. These are complex protein chains that things have to happen exactly in order to create even simple chain of 150 amino acids. These are the odds:



Now, that has to happen over and over to make up hundreds of proteins and yet you want to say, "give us enough time, it will happen" and it just won't. You are living in make believe fairy tale land and that I have to hand it to you requires a great deal of faith.



When pressed on the details, even Dawkins admits to ID, but you all won't. Nope, just keep saying we don't know science, we can't get it, and never deal with the presented facts. We can keep going in circles, but it doesn't change the facts presented that show how evolution is not backed up by science, but is based on faith.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

No, you're the one that doesn't get it.

Yes, we can keep going in circles and you will probably never admit that you don't get it and that god is your go to answer.

That doesn't do it for some of us so, we continue to search because we lack faith, which is in direct opposition to your claim that we are operating on faith.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by daskakik

 

Look, if you think you can flip the coin to come out a billion times heads and that isn't even close to the numbers needed to get life for a simple cell, then you and I live in two different worlds of reality. You have incredible faith. I challenge you to video you flipping a coin 100 times and it coming up heads every time. Just video you doing it, no stops, keep rolling and post it.

You know this is a fairy tale to even think you can get those chances to work out. You are talking literally 1 to 10 in 110,000 ! I wish I lived near you to film this. I tell you what. I will fill a bucket with white sand and 1 black sand. I will blindfold you and tell you to stick your hand in the kiddy pool and pull out the black grain. If you do it, here is $5000.00. Just pay me $500.00 to try it, and I will give you as many goes as you want. It is NOT going to happen and you have much better odds doing that than 1 in 10 to the 110,000!

Maybe I will do a man on the street test. I will ask them if they would like to win 1000 dollars. Pay me 10 to try it, and I will have a big bag of sand just like I said all white with one grain of black in there somewhere. You think anyone will give me their 10 bucks? Anyone?

edit on 12-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

See your manipulating the math again evolution doesnt happen 1 thing at a time but now your being stubborn, try trillions and trillions of possible tries. what if i had a hundred people trying to flip a coin and get heads say 100 times again not likely. But what about thousand hey my odds are getting better though still unlikely. A billion people someone may get lucky how about a trillion people well now its becoming more likely to happen. I figure around quadrillion people someone will do it. As i told you an entire planet filled with bio chemicals the possible combinations that could have formed would be mind boggling. But see when creationist do the math they limit the sample size making it impossible.Not to mention the fact if a mathematician was honest hed tell you its impossible to tell if its impossible because you dont know how big the sampling size was in the first place.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You've got to be kidding me. Dawkins didn't admit to ID. He said it could be possible that a species evolved by Darwinian means to have the power of creating a universe. For one, that isn't god. For two, he only said it's possible, not that it freaking happened that way.

You are really grasping at straws here. Just admit it. God is dead, and no one cares.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by ZeroReady

 

You know, you just don't get it do you? It's not even as simple as my little example. These are complex protein chains that things have to happen exactly in order to create even simple chain of 150 amino acids. These are the odds:

Now, that has to happen over and over to make up hundreds of proteins and yet you want to say, "give us enough time, it will happen" and it just won't. You are living in make believe fairy tale land and that I have to hand it to you requires a great deal of faith.

When pressed on the details, even Dawkins admits to ID, but you all won't. Nope, just keep saying we don't know science, we can't get it, and never deal with the presented facts. We can keep going in circles, but it doesn't change the facts presented that show how evolution is not backed up by science, but is based on faith.

edit on 13-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

AS I have said in the other thread. Chemical reactions are NOT RANDOM; therefore, Statistical probabilities DO NOT APPLY.