Creationists

[jack113]

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.

 

[Hollie]

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.

Say goodnight, johnny.

 

[UltimateReality]

So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?

No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Another irrelevant post. Of course you can't just address the topic at hand... ever.

 

[UltimateReality]

Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.

Your response still shows a total and complete lack of understanding of the probabilistic problems facing abiogenesis. Your response basically amounts to Meyer is wrong because Meyer is wrong.

There is nothing to understand, shit-for-brains. Stop trying to make this seem like this is some deep enigmatic enquiry into something esoteric. I saw Meyer demonstrate his thinking in about 20 seconds. He multiplies a bunch of fractions representing the different possible combination of possible amino acids, and got a number. Wow! That is something else. Truly, a demonstration for the ages.

A demonstration that demonstrates the impossibility of abiogenesis in an amino acid pond. Only an ignoramus would not see the problem this presents to naturalistic origins explanations. Like I said, your argument consists of "Meyer is wrong because I said so." That ain't gonna fly around here.

 

[UltimateReality]

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.

The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.

 

[UltimateReality]

Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...

Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will."

This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.

How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?


Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument

There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.

The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e. – the gambler’s fallacy). All these other universes don’t support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.

Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.

Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

…maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation… observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.

So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past.

 

[UltimateReality]

Poor NP, there's those darn "fractions" again. We are back to the probability arguments again and once again, you lose! For some of the values below, there are an infinite number of other possibilities that wouldn't have even resulted in a universe with stars and planets, much less life. So what is the fraction 1/infinity?

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below. In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first
supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in
the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the
middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate
mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

Reasons To Believe : Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe

 

[Hollie]

No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Another irrelevant post. Of course you can't just address the topic at hand... ever.

Your primary objection is that yet another christian creationist crackpot has been exposed as a fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...

Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will."

This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.

How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?


Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument

There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.

The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e. – the gambler’s fallacy). All these other universes don’t support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.

Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.

Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

…maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation… observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.

So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past.

Simple answer: "The gawds did it"

Shouldn't you be somewhere making ritual animal sacrifice to your designer gawds?

 

[Hollie]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts christian creationists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “The gawds did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that their gawds designed and created our universe. They doesn't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because it’s in the bible and because the bible is true, the bible is therefore true.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the christian creationist because there are none. When ID’iocy is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because the gawds intended it. When ID’iocy is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, it's because the gawds intended that instead. When ID’iocy fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, “the gawds did it” is the explanation.

We see with regularity how christian creationists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled gawds, but in the worldview where a hierarchy of designer gawds are responsible for all, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the christian creationists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove gawds, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details of construction.

It would certainly be more honest of christian creationists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any different merits than that they have a need to believe it. But christian creationists are gob-smacked with belief, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards.

 

[Hollie]

Poor christian creationists. Once again, their "probaility" arguments are shot down in flames.


Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions

Often on talk.origins we have seen assertions to the effect that there exists a law that is well known to physicists and/or mathematicians (possibly implying that it is a mathematical theorem) that there is a particular order of probability below which any event is considered to be "essentially impossible". This statement usually preceeds a calculation based on some unrealistic model of the formation of complicated organic molecules via the random assembly of atoms as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible. At the end of this article, references are given to several creationist sources that refer to this probability assertion as "Borel's Law".

The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

…

In Probability and Life, Borel states a "single law of chance" as the principle that "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur". At the beginning of Chapter Three of this book, he states:
When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.

It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.

The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.

Borel continues by giving examples of how to choose such cutoff probabilities. For example, by reasoning from the traffic death rate of 1 per million in Paris (pre-World War II statistics) that an event of probability of 10-6(one in a million) is negligible on a "human scale". Multiplying this by 10-9 (1 over the population of the world in the 1940s), he obtains 10-15 as an estimate of negligible probabilities on a "terrestrial scale".

To evaluate the chance that physical laws such as Newtonian mechanics or laws related to the propagation of light could be wrong, Borel discusses probabilities that are negligible on a "cosmic scale", Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans could make on those stars (1020).

To compute the odds against a container containing a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that for equal volumes of oxygen and nitrogen the odds would be 2-n where n is the number of atoms, which Borel states as being smaller than the negligible probability of 10-(10(-10)), which he assigns as the negligible probability on a "supercosmic" scale. Borel creates this supercosmos by nesting our universe U1inside successive supercosmoses, each with the same number of elements identical to the preceding cosmos as that cosmos has its own elements, so that U2 would be composed of the same number of U1's as U1 has atoms, and U3 would be composed of the same number of U2's as U2 has U1's, and so forth on up to UN where N=1 million. He then creates a similar nested time scale with the base time of our universe being a billion years (T2 would contain a billion, billion years) on up to TN, N=1 million. Under such conditions of the number of atoms and the amount of time, the probability of separating the nitrogen and oxygen by a random process is still so small as to be negligible.

Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions.

Curiously, in spite of the suggestive title of the book Probability and Life, Borel has no discussion of evolution or abiogenesis-related issues. However, in Probability and Certainty, the last section of the main text is devoted to this question.


From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:

The Problem of Life.

In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.

When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?

It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.

Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.

In short, Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

What breeders have reached a dead end?

So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.

The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.

The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.

You hit the nail on the head for once hollie to bad it is you that is the cultist.

I had every expectation you and the other fundie would slither away.

Some people have lives Hollie. What is there to slither away from ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.

How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.

Another empty accusation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...

Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will."

This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.

How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?


Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument

There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.

The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e. – the gambler’s fallacy). All these other universes don’t support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.

Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.

Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

…maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation… observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.

So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past.

Simple answer: "The gawds did it"

Shouldn't you be somewhere making ritual animal sacrifice to your designer gawds?

Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.

 

[ima]

Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.

Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.

 

[Hollie]

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

What breeders have reached a dead end?

So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.

The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.

The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.

You don’t have a grasp of the terms you’re hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called “line-breeding”, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.

Your description has nothing to do with “reaching a dead end”. That’s ridiculous. Similarly, you use “over-breeding” incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.

 

[Hollie]

Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will."

This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.

How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?


Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument

There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.

The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e. – the gambler’s fallacy). All these other universes don’t support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.

Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.

Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

…maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation… observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.

So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past.

Simple answer: "The gawds did it"

Shouldn't you be somewhere making ritual animal sacrifice to your designer gawds?

Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.

Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?
-Jules Feiffer

All seriousness aside, your anguished appeals to a fable which is absent any verification or substantiation is not something that you should feel a need to hurl at me.

I have much more empathy for the man who spent 3 days in the belly of a fish. That story we know is true. “Call me Ishmael”..

 

[Hollie]

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.

How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?

As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.

So yes, I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...


...allow me the occasion to whack-a fundie.