Regardless of faith: do you believe the bible is the word of god?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
magnifier661 said:
It's funny that Creationists are grouped as "conspiracy theorists" that want to disprove Science. I embrace science and I am asking questions on that science. It has nothing to do with God right now; yet it seems Crow think it is.
Click to expand...

it has everything to do with god. the only reason you're questioning science here is because your default position is that genesis is literally true. if jewish priests hadn't bothered to include it in the torah you would accept the scientific position on evolution as you accept every other scientific position that doesn't challenge your religious belief.
 
crowTrobot said:
symbiotic relationships ARE the evidence (for evolution). they are a prediction that emerges naturally from the theory.
Click to expand...

Let me give you just one incident of symbiosis.

Henry Quastler

Both Coppedge and Salisbury cite a certain Henry Quastler's work on this problem. This work can be found in The Emergence of Biological Organization (1964). But he is quoted selectively, for his final conclusions actually support the possibility of life. But in the process, he derives some daunting figures that are quoted out of context. His approach is unique: he calculates the information content of a DNA code. He first argues that "a low estimate of the information content of a bacterium" is "10^3 bits...[which] corresponds to...a single choice among 2^1000 possibilities." This means that "the probability of making such a choice by accident is 10^-301" (p. 4). After estimating the available time, materials, etc., "the probability of life having originated through random choice...[is] about 10^-255" (p. 6). Of course, Quastler knows very well that life did not begin with a bacterium, and so he does not say that these are the odds against the origin of life, but simply demonstrate that life must have begun simpler. That is, natural selection can build up the information content of this complex bacterium beginning with something smaller.

When he considers numerous other factors for a possible original replicator, even the worst chance of life beginning naturally he finally figures to be 10^-20, which is well within the realm of the possible [see 1]. Quastler concludes that this "suggests that the probability of obtaining a complete set of enzymes by coding proteins from 10^7 nucleotide pairs may be quite high" (p. 46). In other words, it is naturally possible. After adding other factors and considering all angles, he figures a final range of probability between 10^-6 and 10^-30 (p. 58). Quastler's work thus proves that the natural origin of life is not too improbable at all.
Click to expand...

So for just 1 strand of DNA; the probability of the physical evolution is 2^1 000 = 1.07150861 × 10 to the power of 301. I can't even put the number on here without taking up 3 screens. And now let's put the theory that over 1 billion years of evolution made over billions of different organisms on this planet. Can you see the mathematical improbability on this?
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Again, what do you base this on?
Click to expand...

it's based on the theory itself. species evolve to adapt to their environment. other species they interact with constitute part of their environment. if the theory is true it should not be surprising that species evolve interdepenent relationships.
 
crowTrobot said:
here you're just displaying a total lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is or what it claims. suggest you study that first THEN look at evidence. otherwise you won't be able to tell propaganda from fact.
Click to expand...

I proved it quite well, but you are ignoring the mathematical improbability. That is science, not conspiracy. Look at the equation and get back to me. Hell ask Nic, whom I heard was a math guru and give him this question. Billions of organisms, some with multi-symbiotic DNA differences X 10 to the power of 301. Then factor the formula of having only 1 billion years to make this process happen and see where it takes you.
 
crowTrobot said:
it has everything to do with god. the only reason you're questioning science here is because your default position is that genesis is literally true. if jewish priests hadn't bothered to include it in the torah you would accept the scientific position on evolution as you accept every other scientific position that doesn't challenge your religious belief.
Click to expand...

Um, I'm asking you mathematical improbabilities, scientific questions and well pretty much keeping it in the language you only accept. Not one of my questions to you on the last 20 posts have used "God" as the answer. I am asking you to prove how you can accept the mathematical improbability? It's impossible through a natural process.
 
crowTrobot said:
it's based on the theory itself. species evolve to adapt to their environment. other species they interact with constitute part of their environment. if the theory is true it should not be surprising that species evolve interdepenent relationships.
Click to expand...

And you're the only person I've heard that claims symbiosis actually supports evolution. What are your sources and where did you gather your information from?
 
magnifier661 said:
Um, I'm asking you mathematical improbabilities, scientific questions and well pretty much keeping it in the language you only accept. Not one of my questions to you on the last 20 posts have used "God" as the answer. I am asking you to prove how you can accept the mathematical improbability? It's impossible through a natural process.
Click to expand...



you posted a piece of propanda taking one scientists work from 1964 out of context and figuring odds of evolution "by accident" and "random chance". you clearly don't understand the first thing about what the theory actually is.
 
And let me add that this "quote" I posted, explains that it is "probable"; but the time table "theorized" being billions of species only having 1 billion years to evolve is very "improbable". So this "mathematic probability" disproves the other scientific findings of the Earth being a few hundred billions of years old. And even more importantly; complex organisms existing 100 billions of years ago. That gives you 100 billion years to make up around a billion different organisms.
 
crowTrobot said:
you posted a piece of propanda taking one scientists work from 1964 out of context and figuring odds of evolution "by accident" and "random chance". you clearly don't understand the first thing about what the theory actually is.
Click to expand...

Propaganda? You think a christian published this? LOL this is actually from a science journal; not some "Christian Propaganda publication"
 
magnifier661 said:
Educated Guess isn't a bad thing. I promote it. It's when that guess is taught to young children as fact. The theory of evolution is "A theory" yet, in schools they explain it as fact. No theory... I knew of a child in school that refused to learn the "Science of evolution", and the school threatened to fail her. She asked the science teacher; are we in English class learning non-fiction and was given a demerit.

When the parents went to school and spoke with the principle; he explained that she must do her homework to the school's curriculum or she will fail.

This girl wasn't even a Christian but doubted "evolution" and didn't want to learn something she felt was just theory. I am going to try and search for the article. It was like 7 years ago when I wrote it.
Click to expand...

Oh god.

Creationism.

Jesus.

What the hell is wrong with this world?

I give up.
 
How about this one?

Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe

The most commonly cited source for statistical impossibility of the origin of life comes from another odd book, Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe (Dent, 1981; immediately reprinted by Simon & Schuster that same year, under the title Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism). The statistic 10^40,000 is calculated on p. 24 (Hoyle repeats the exact same argument on pp. 16-17 of The Intelligent Universe (1983)). A twenty-amino-acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Although Hoyle does not state it, this would entail that there must have been a minimum specificity, of one specific possibility, for the first enzymic life, of 10^20, a value to which Hoyle himself says "by itself, this small probability could be faced" (and this statistic even fails to account for that fact that any number of "first enzymic organisms" are possible, and not just one as his calculation assumes). Hoyle then goes on: "the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes," (in "the whole of biology," p. 23), "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."
Click to expand...
 
magnifier661 said:
Propaganda? You think a christian published this? LOL this is actually from a science journal; not some "Christian Propaganda publication"
Click to expand...

yes it's a scientific article from 1964 taken out of context. it's also strictly an attempted refutation of abiogenesis and doesn't even relate to evolved symbiosis.
 
crowTrobot said:
yes it's a scientific article from 1964 taken out of context. it's also strictly an attempted refutation of abiogenesis and doesn't even relate to evolved symbiosis.
Click to expand...

Without abiogenesis evolution doesn't even make it off the ground. (If you don't believe it's guided by God or something)
 
magnifier661 said:
And let me add that this "quote" I posted, explains that it is "probable"; but the time table "theorized" being billions of species only having 1 billion years to evolve is very "improbable". So this "mathematic probability" disproves the other scientific findings of the Earth being a few hundred billions of years old. And even more importantly; complex organisms existing 100 billions of years ago. That gives you 100 billion years to make up around a billion different organisms.
Click to expand...


what?
 
crowTrobot said:
yes it's a scientific article from 1964 taken out of context. it's also strictly an attempted refutation of abiogenesis and doesn't even relate to evolved symbiosis.
Click to expand...

Okay let's just be "conservative" with this number. How about we make it 10 to the power of 30? Then add billions of different organisms, and give it 1,000,000,000 years to form these billion different possibilities. Cause you know dinosaurs aren't single celled organisms. And we can theorize that there were fish, insects, mammals and other such living organisms.

Is that mathematically possible?
 
magnifier661 said:
Okay let's just be "conservative" with this number. How about we make it 10 to the power of 30? Then add billions of different organisms, and give it 1,000,000,000 years to form these billion different possibilities. Cause you know dinosaurs aren't single celled organisms. And we can theorize that there were fish, insects, mammals and other such living organisms.

Is that mathematically possible?
Click to expand...

i haven't followed your last few posts, but note that evolution (and presumably by extension abiogenesis) was/is not driven by random chance or accident, so any line or reasoning that makes use of bare odds in this way isn't valid.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
So you give up before you've even began? It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about blind evolution.
Click to expand...

I am sorry sir, but I have to say it - SlyPokerDog is an idiot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Masbee said:
I am sorry sir, but I have to say it - SlyPokerDog is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. I see you have no arguments whatsoever, so I suggest you leave and let the grown ups talk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Thanks for your input. I see you have no arguments whatsoever, so I suggest you leave and let the grown ups talk.
Click to expand...

The possibility of that happening ended when I started posting in this thread!:clap::devilwink:
 
This is an interesting debate on evolution. At the 16 minute mark is the actual debate. Before they talked about their credentials, or "get to know the debaters" segment.

[video=youtube;wr6uvUNJLww]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top