 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
antiaging
Little Goldfish
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 53
Location: New Orleans LA
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: Evidence God Created Life-Evolution is False |
 |
|
Scientific evidence to argue for the existence of God and against evolution for the origin of the species.
The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado. When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house. They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290
"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291
"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "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?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
They've also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.
Noah's flood mixed up all the layers under it. So any fossils from beneath the sedimentary layer cannot be dated to the rock they are found in.
Disorder always increases overall, in any observed scientific processes. It is an established law of entropy in physics. Small areas of order can happen that is not very complex in small parts of any system, but the overall disorder of the system must increase.
Heat is disordered energy.
Something as simple as a refrigerator, which produces more order in the cooling sections, must be designed to function that way, and will not happen by chance. And a refrigerator is no where near as complex as a living cell.
Overall disorder in the refrigerator function still increases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whee, I get to make a list!
| antiaging wrote: | | The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. |
1. Argument from incredulity
First, how did you come to a conclusion in regards to the probability of the universe coming into existence? How many universes have you seen come into being that you can give a probability for them?
2. False dichotomy
Okay, so maybe the universe required a creator. Why necessarily the one you believe in? Is it impossible that, say, the creator of the universe expired after its creation, or simply left?
| antiaging wrote: | There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator. |
3. Argument from incredulity
Why? An entirely random string of ones and zeroes 6 billion digits long would fill ~600 novels each 500 pages long using regular typefacing. Would this be indicative of intelligence behind the string?
Why does quantity somehow denote the necessity of intelligence?
| antiaging wrote: | The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible. |
4. Apples and oranges
DNA is not the outcome of random chance.
| antiaging wrote: | Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone. |
5. Appeal to unqualified authority
| antiaging wrote: | | In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. |
6. Argument from ignorance/strawman
Nobody claims that the original self-replicating lifeform had the same requirements as the simplest life today.
| antiaging wrote: | The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible.
...
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.] |
7. Argument from really big numbers.
There are 52! possible organizations of cards in a standard 52-card deck 8 times 10 to the 67th power). That's enough that it's actually possible to deal from a deck which has an entirely unique order. And yet, none of the possibilities are impossible.
Plus, I have no idea where you got this 10^4,478,296 figure; but read this if you want to know why it's invalid. And Hoyle came up with a few figures for different things: 1 in 10^29,345, 1 in 10^40,000 and 1 in 2.3x10^3,216. So where did you get yours?
| antiaging wrote: | | This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. |
8. False dichotomy.
You can't prove one proposition by "disproving" another. Further, what's the probability of God existing? Surely that should figure into your calculations?
| antiaging wrote: | | There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. |
Snowflakes. Sedimentation of evenly mixed materials.
| antiaging wrote: | | In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity. |
9. Ignorance of what the second law of thermodynamics actually applies to
The second law applies to closed systems, and simply states that entropy will tend to increase as a whole over time. The universe is an example of this, its total entropy is always increasing. This does not prevent order from occuring anyway—
The Earth is not a closed system. We get a little bit of energy from the sun after all.
| antiaging wrote: | | Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. |
10. Argument from not paying attention to the actual science
There are loads of transitionals for all of your examples. Your fault is that you simply ignore them and focus instead on the gaps between them—you have to consider for a moment that no one expects us to ever find fossil evidence for every species transition.
| antiaging wrote: | | Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. |
11. Argument from misunderstanding science
Yes, they do, in a sense. Pretty much very single one of them.
| antiaging wrote: | | Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. |
As I've pointed out, no one expects that they should except people that misunderstand the fossil record. It is not perfect, it is nowhere near perfect. What we have found are numerous transitionals anyway (but of course every example we find just creates two more gaps, right!?).
| antiaging wrote: | Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]. |
12. Argument from outdated and out of context quote
Here's the full quote: | Darwin wrote: | But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas.
So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links directly intermediate between them ever existed, but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence, in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links. |
| antiaging wrote: | | They've also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US. |
All of which were faked or natural mineral phenomenon mistaken for footprints.
| antiaging wrote: | | Noah's flood mixed up all the layers under it. So any fossils from beneath the sedimentary layer cannot be dated to the rock they are found in. |
Strange how much consilience there is, anyway. And how come we've found sediment layers with footprints and burrows? Sediments that were supposedly laid down by the flood?
| antiaging wrote: | | Disorder always increases overall, in any observed scientific processes. It is an established law of entropy in physics. Small areas of order can happen that is not very complex in small parts of any system, but the overall disorder of the system must increase. |
13. Equivocation
Luckily, the universe is a very large system in which the overall entropy increases. The Earth is relatively small and is pretty much the opposite of a closed system seeing as we get 1.74x10^17 watts from it every year.
Funnily enough, none of this was evidence for creation, it was simply holes you've "found" (copied) in the theory of evolution. Way to go, though.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Whee, I get to make a list! |
Don't you attend class anymore... where do you get the time...?
| Quote: | | antiaging wrote: | There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator. |
3. Argument from incredulity
Why? An entirely random string of ones and zeroes 6 billion digits long would fill ~600 novels each 500 pages long using regular typefacing. Would this be indicative of intelligence behind the string? |
Yes... unless you can demonstrate it occurring naturally... we call this reasoning. It is one of the many reasons why we are on top of the food chain. Denying the mathematical probabilities of a self-replicating cell arising on its own, based on what we DO know, is denying reason. It is an error, an intentional error, of judgement.
| Quote: | | antiaging wrote: | Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone. |
5. Appeal to unqualified authority |
 Oh for pete's sake FFT. If it is an appeal to 'unqualified authority' please.... tell all of us who is qualified to explain how life originated. Tell us who has demonstrated that this did occur on its own and the processes involved.
If you can't, you are simply wrong with your categorization.
| Quote: | | antiaging wrote: | | In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. |
6. Argument from ignorance/strawman |
Again... what are the conditions necessary for life to exist minus what we currently observe? What conditions would be necessary for life to exist in this condition?
If you don't have an answer... you are simply wrong.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Nobody claims that the original self-replicating lifeform had the same requirements as the simplest life today. |
and that is because that the simplest life form existing today is exponentially more complex than the space shuttle... so, I guess it would be smart to make up some form of pre-existing 'simpler' life to make my theory stick. 
| Quote: | | Further, what's the probability of God existing? Surely that should figure into your calculations? |
100%. My guess is you don't want to go down this road again.
| Quote: | | antiaging wrote: | | There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. |
Snowflakes. |
 Hmmm... there are no two snowflakes alike. Seems pretty random to me...
| Quote: | | Sedimentation of evenly mixed materials. |
Sure, if you don't consider the chemicals involved...
| Quote: | | antiaging wrote: | | They've also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US. |
All of which were faked or natural mineral phenomenon mistaken for footprints. |
Rut-row-raggy (my best scooby impression) I think we have travel down this path several times and virtually every time someone has failed to answer the question concerning the compressions found in the Paluxy print. Nor has anyone explained why one print erodes while the others that are right next to it didn’t. Someone wants to.... dare I say it.... argue by appealing to authority.
Would you care to rephrase your answer Sir? You and I both know the circular argument involved with this FFT. One side keeps screaming that we don't find evidence for Dinosaur/human co-existence. Then, once it is provided... it is dismissed... NOT REFUTED... dismissed as an anomaly without ANY support. No support. Nada.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Don't you attend class anymore... where do you get the time...? |
Well of the five classes I'm taking this semester, two are entirely online, one is pretty much entirely online so I don't have to attend the class, and one is only on Mondays and it's long and I don't have to pay much attention since I already know all of the philosophical stuff we're going over and the other half of the class is watching movies.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | An entirely random string of ones and zeroes 6 billion digits long would fill ~600 novels each 500 pages long using regular typefacing. Would this be indicative of intelligence behind the string? |
Yes... unless you can demonstrate it occurring naturally... we call this reasoning. |
An entirely random string of ones and zeroes 6 billion digits long is indicative of intelligence behind the string? Really? Unless you're speaking of the books themselves, which is irrelevant to the point I was making.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | 5. Appeal to unqualified authority |
Oh for pete's sake FFT. If it is an appeal to 'unqualified authority' please.... tell all of us who is qualified to explain how life originated. Tell us who has demonstrated that this did occur on its own and the processes involved.
If you can't, you are simply wrong with your categorization. |
What does this have to do with "'scientists' and mathematicians"? If they're forced to believe in God through logic, what's the logical argument that convinced them? I seem to remember a thread I posted a year or so back asking for valid logical arguments for God which descended into hilarious madness because no one could actually come up with one.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | 6. Argument from ignorance/strawman |
Again... what are the conditions necessary for life to exist minus what we currently observe? What conditions would be necessary for life to exist in this condition?
If you don't have an answer... you are simply wrong. |
Argument from ignorance.
Man, feels like deja vu!
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Nobody claims that the original self-replicating lifeform had the same requirements as the simplest life today. |
and that is because that the simplest life form existing today is exponentially more complex than the space shuttle... |
So?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Further, what's the probability of God existing? Surely that should figure into your calculations? |
100%. My guess is you don't want to go down this road again. |
Did we ever? I'll happily participate in a new thread about it.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | antiaging wrote: | | There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. |
Snowflakes. |
 Hmmm... there are no two snowflakes alike. Seems pretty random to me... |
Would you actually argue that snowflakes are not ordered or complex or the result of chance?
Seriously?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Sedimentation of evenly mixed materials. |
Sure, if you don't consider the chemicals involved... |
Okay ... let's consider what would happen with whatever chemicals you like. Would that suddenly make the sedimentation outcome random?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | All of which were faked or natural mineral phenomenon mistaken for footprints. |
Rut-row-raggy (my best scooby impression) I think we have travel down this path several times and virtually every time someone has failed to answer the question concerning the compressions found in the Paluxy print. |
Please. Even AiG admits there's no rational reason to use the Paluxy footprints as evidence for creation. "There is no controversy surrounding the prints, only the creationists' stubborn refusal to bow to the evidence" -Massimo Pigliucci
Strange, you missed this part: | FFT wrote: | | And how come we've found sediment layers with footprints and burrows? Sediments that were supposedly laid down by the flood? |
Wait, that's not strange! It's normal for you to ignore things which completely demolish your beliefs. My bad.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Well of the five classes I'm taking this semester, two are entirely online, one is pretty much entirely online so I don't have to attend the class, and one is only on Mondays and it's long and I don't have to pay much attention since I already know all of the philosophical stuff we're going over and the other half of the class is watching movies. |
Watching movies? What Class would allow you to watch movies...
| FFT wrote: | | What does this have to do with "'scientists' and mathematicians"? If they're forced to believe in God through logic, what's the logical argument that convinced them? I seem to remember a thread I posted a year or so back asking for valid logical arguments for God which descended into hilarious madness because no one could actually come up with one. |
I believe this dealt with abiogenesis and the probabilities of chemical reactions... that is what the math was about. The argument then proceeds towards not knowing the variables therefore the mathematical probabilities are are irrelevant.... but when pressed for what the variables are... it becomes strangely silent. The probabilities, from my understanding, are predicated on what variables we do know are necessary for life to exist, form, and replicate... it doesn't even include the unknown variables of how life can develop its own genetic language and all associated impossibilities that go along that road.
So.. again, your accusation of appealing to unqualified authority is bogus... and the demonstrable impossibilities from probability are spot on.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Nobody claims that the original self-replicating lifeform had the same requirements as the simplest life today. |
and that is because that the simplest life form existing today is exponentially more complex than the space shuttle... |
So? |
So? Soooooo... it is an unqualified cop-out with ZERO empirical data to back it up. It is, like I consistently maintain, an excuse. An excuse to teach our kids that life can come from non-life. An excuse to leave God out of the equation (that He is not allowed into in the first place BTW) and then maintain, with a straight face knowing the Religious implications that it ain't their fault. Yet… we still teach this as science over the objections of parents.. why is that? It certainly isn’t science.. that’s for sure… so why bother teaching it? Answer, abiogenesis is an excuse to deny the existence of a creator... period. Reason and logic have demonstrated the necessity for God... and people still deny that reality.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Further, what's the probability of God existing? Surely that should figure into your calculations? |
100%. My guess is you don't want to go down this road again. |
Did we ever? I'll happily participate in a new thread about it. |
Everything that exists, exists necessarily ring a bell?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | antiaging wrote: | | There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. |
Snowflakes. |
Hmmm... there are no two snowflakes alike. Seems pretty random to me... |
Would you actually argue that snowflakes are not ordered or complex or the result of chance? Seriously? |
I would argue their formation is nothing more than chemical reactions... governed by the laws of physics. Nothing more. If you want to maintain that they are ordered and consistent, then you need to show how random formations can produce consistently similar flakes... it doesn't happen.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | All of which were faked or natural mineral phenomenon mistaken for footprints. |
Rut-row-raggy (my best scooby impression) I think we have travel down this path several times and virtually every time someone has failed to answer the question concerning the compressions found in the Paluxy print. |
Please. Even AiG admits there's no rational reason to use the Paluxy footprints as evidence for creation. "There is no controversy surrounding the prints, only the creationists' stubborn refusal to bow to the evidence" -Massimo Pigliucci |
1. Massimo is a hack from Mike Shermer’s rag, “Skeptic”. I don’t think he has even seen the tracks… but even if he had, he still has not commented on the compressions. I could care less what he has to say about them. If he hasn’t even seen them what difference does his opinion make. If he has, why hasn’t he addressed the science behind them? If he has, where are his findings as I really would like to read them?
2. The compressions. If you look HERE you will see that the print I am referring too, found right next to dinosaur prints looks exactly like a human print. The excuse, as Massimo purports, is that it is eroded to look like a human print. The problem is that if the print is eroded (A) why didn’t other prints erode and (B – more importantly) why are there compressions underneath this print completely consistent with a human print…. Meaning, they have experimented to see what type of compression a human makes when walking and compared it to the compressions found with this print… and they match. No one addresses this as they know the implications.
3. Direct me to the evidence refuting this print please…. Not rhetoric, but the science demonstrating that this is not a human print. Evolutionists consistently ask for just one piece of evidence that humans and dinosaurs existed together… they have it… they simply refuse to acknowledge it… plain and simple.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | Strange, you missed this part: | FFT wrote: | | And how come we've found sediment layers with footprints and burrows? Sediments that were supposedly laid down by the flood? |
Wait, that's not strange! It's normal for you to ignore things which completely demolish your beliefs. My bad. |
QED.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | FFT wrote: | Strange, you missed this part: | FFT wrote: | | And how come we've found sediment layers with footprints and burrows? Sediments that were supposedly laid down by the flood? |
Wait, that's not strange! It's normal for you to ignore things which completely demolish your beliefs. My bad. |
QED. |
Huh? Borrows in sediments indicate what FFT? That they were made prior to the flood, after the flood, during the flood? What?
Borrows demonstrate dink. I could just as easily shift the goal posts on you and direct your attention to the lack of erosion marks in sediments that were supposedly laid down over millions of years. Funny how nothing erodd for that long of a period.... but you evidently don't seem to have a problem with that??? No.. just borrows that are present in what you beleive are sediments laid down by the flood.
So... fossilized human footprints right next to dinosaur footprints. Unrefuted, demonstrated to be human.. and you want to bring up another subject. Well.. I'm not surprised. I would too.
QED.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Huh? Borrows in sediments indicate what FFT? That they were made prior to the flood, after the flood, during the flood? What? |
That the flood didn't happen. How could a burrowing animal dug a hole into material suspended in water? How could one burrow into a layer as it's being set?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I could just as easily shift the goal posts on you and direct your attention to the lack of erosion marks in sediments that were supposedly laid down over millions of years. Funny how nothing erodd for that long of a period.... but you evidently don't seem to have a problem with that??? |
Feel free to try.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | So... fossilized human footprints right next to dinosaur footprints. Unrefuted, demonstrated to be human.. and you want to bring up another subject. Well.. I'm not surprised. I would too. |
Actually, I wrote out a response to the whole post but then noticed that you didn't even bother responding when called out. Why should I bother with you if you can't explain something that would falsify creation/flood? The human+dinosaur footprints have all been soundly refuted (see, just as much authority as when you claim they aren't!).
Burrows in "flood sediment"
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I could just as easily shift the goal posts on you and direct your attention to the lack of erosion marks in sediments that were supposedly laid down over millions of years. Funny how nothing erodd for that long of a period.... but you evidently don't seem to have a problem with that??? |
Feel free to try. |
What would the point be? I have shown you evidence demonstrating the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs and the only thing you do is cite some hack from Skeptic magazine that had never observed the track himself....
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | So... fossilized human footprints right next to dinosaur footprints. Unrefuted, demonstrated to be human.. and you want to bring up another subject. Well.. I'm not surprised. I would too. |
Actually, I wrote out a response to the whole post but then noticed that you didn't even bother responding when called out. Why should I bother with you if you can't explain something that would falsify creation/flood? The human+dinosaur footprints have all been soundly refuted (see, just as much authority as when you claim they aren't!). |
They have been refuted? Really? Are you going to get around to citing something... something other than someone who had never looked at these prints before? Are you going to even try to stay on topic FFT instead of trying to derail evidence that demonstrates the very thing you and evolutionists demand from creationists... proof? And now, when you get it.... its lets change the subject...
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | They have been refuted? Really? Are you going to get around to citing something... something other than someone who had never looked at these prints before? Are you going to even try to stay on topic FFT instead of trying to derail evidence that demonstrates the very thing you and evolutionists demand from creationists... proof? And now, when you get it.... its lets change the subject... |
Why do you think even AiG suggests creationists not use the tracks in their arguments?
Refutation of Paluxy tracks, from someone who was, indeed, there.
Burdick print refutation, sourced.
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Huh? Borrows in sediments indicate what FFT? That they were made prior to the flood, after the flood, during the flood? What? |
That the flood didn't happen. How could a burrowing animal dug a hole into material suspended in water? How could one burrow into a layer as it's being set? |
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Why do you think even AiG suggests creationists not use the tracks in their arguments? |
AiG is not the final authority for creationists believe it or not FFT. I think they are a great organization, but I simply disagree wit h them on this point… and a few others.
Glad to see you cite someone who has actually looked at these tracks.. thanks. Did you read these articles?
Here is the conclusion of Kuban's articles (I mean.. lets just get through all of the clutter and cut right to the chase):
| Quote: | | The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock. The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine. Creationists would do well to abandon the Burdick track. |
First, you move immediately to Henry Morris and not Don Patton’s work… why is that?
Second, Kuban claims the track is a fake.. a carving.
Tell me.... FFT... how does someone 'carve' compressions into rock, underneath the track, precisely how a human would create the same print?
I have asked a legitimate question... and I think you know it. He has intentionally omitted the very crux of the argument in his analyses. Why are there compressions, compressions as demonstrated in my citation, that are completely consistent with human footprints?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | AiG is not the final authority for creationists believe it or not FFT. I think they are a great organization, but I simply disagree wit h them on this point… and a few others. |
| AiG wrote: | | Persistently using discredited arguments is both ineffectual and, more importantly, immoral—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth” (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the “doubtful” arguments. |
Also, this
| Trinity1 wrote: | | First, you move immediately to Henry Morris and not Don Patton’s work… why is that? |
Uh? Both articles were by Glen J. Kuban
| Trinity1 wrote: | Second, Kuban claims the track is a fake.. a carving.
Tell me.... FFT... how does someone 'carve' compressions into rock, underneath the track, precisely how a human would create the same print? |
Is this true of the Burdick print, specifically?
Origin of what became the Burdick print.
Interestingly, Burdick was a founder of the Deluge Society. | FFT wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Huh? Borrows in sediments indicate what FFT? That they were made prior to the flood, after the flood, during the flood? What? |
That the flood didn't happen. How could a burrowing animal dug a hole into material suspended in water? How could one burrow into a layer as it's being set? |
|
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
