Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[the_human_being]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

Prove it mathematically, not with some atheist website nonsense. Use mathematics to prove it and then we can all understand it.

Prove what exactly, mathematically? Do you realize that mathematics is not a central proof for biology? Proof for the biological record would be accomplished with the disciplines of the fossil record, paleontology, chemistry and the other biological sciences.

Why use silly card tricks to prove your YEC'ist fallacies?

Then just be honest and admit you can't. Have a littler integrity.

 

[Steven_R]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

 

[the_human_being]

Take some biology classes and maybe understand why the scientists are making those claims.

Can't handle the math either I see.

 

[the_human_being]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

 

[Hollie]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You cut and pasted unattributed "quotes" that are a staple of fundie christian ministries.

Let's take a look at just one of your pointless cut and paste "quotes":

"Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

You might as well have appended that nonsense with ".... because I say so".

Why do you think anyone would be bothered with such nonsense?

 

[Hollie]

Take some biology classes and maybe understand why the scientists are making those claims.

Can't handle the math either I see.

What math?

 

[Steven_R]

The only mathematicians saying the math can't work are the ones who don't believe in evolution to begin with.

Nevermind that, the math has to fit the evidence, not the other way around. That's scientific method 101. The evidence is overwhelming that evolution is correct and factual.

 

[Hollie]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

"Five billion years is long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, this would provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

There you go. I just refuted your cut and paste "quote".

 

[Steven_R]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

Let me google that for you

 

[the_human_being]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You cut and pasted unattributed "quotes" that are a staple of fundie christian ministries.

Let's take a look at just one of your pointless cut and paste "quotes":

"Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

You might as well have appended that nonsense with ".... because I say so".

Why do you think anyone would be bothered with such nonsense?

At least I don't just hem and haw and beat my gums without saying anything.

Here's your biology you asked for: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality the false science of evolution

 

[Hollie]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You cut and pasted unattributed "quotes" that are a staple of fundie christian ministries.

Let's take a look at just one of your pointless cut and paste "quotes":

"Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

You might as well have appended that nonsense with ".... because I say so".

Why do you think anyone would be bothered with such nonsense?

At least I don't just hem and haw and beat my gums without saying anything.

Here's your biology you asked for: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality the false science of evolution

Here's the rebuttal:

"Five billion years is long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, this would provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You know...................if you believers are firmly entrenched in your belief that evolution is a myth, then consider one animal.....................

The humble dog.

ALL dog breeds, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, and all dogs in between are ALL descendants from one common ancestor.

The wolf.

All dog breeds can be traced back to them. It was because of selection and breeding by mankind that caused all of the different breeds to happen (and in only about 3,000 years).

It says in the Bible that man was created in the image of God, which means in some small way, we are supposed to be able to be like Him.

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

That would assume that there is a god that can do the breeding in the first place. What we know happens is that species are interdependent, but even more, that interdependency leads to selection. As I described earlier, ants and anteaters have been waging a war for millions of years, and the result has been the evolution of unique species (the anteater, and the species of ants they eat). Genetic isolation also leads to unique species. Many island species are dwarf species because a smaller size more efficiently utilized scarce island resources. So evolution can be explained as a natural process influenced by environmental factors, genetic mutations, and the interactions among species.

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

"If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases," he says, as he mindlessly and unwittingly goes on to arbitrarily preclude what cannot be logically precluded in the same breath: a divine origin. There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy! That's the baby talk of atheistic nincompoops imposing their unfalsifiable metaphysics as they conflate agency with methodology. The assertion that "God did it" and the process of deciphering how God did it via the imperatives of mathematics and the conventions of science are not mutually exclusive on the very face of things.

I have not shut my mind to any possibility! That's you all day long, not I.

Evolutionary theory rests on a scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition, and the science of the atheist necessarily rests on the wholly faith-based metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Science does not and cannot precede logic or the philosophy of science. You have been refuted on this point over and over again by me on this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis
​

The Bible asserts a methodological naturalism for science, not your delusional metaphysical/ontological naturalism. God exists. The logic of absolute objectivity proves God exists and that God is necessarily the very Source and the Ground of the laws of thought and is the sustaining hand of natural and moral law and the physical laws of nature.

You nose-picking atheists of magic and superstition do not own science. God laughs at you.

 

[Hollie]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You cut and pasted unattributed "quotes" that are a staple of fundie christian ministries.

Let's take a look at just one of your pointless cut and paste "quotes":

"Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

You might as well have appended that nonsense with ".... because I say so".

Why do you think anyone would be bothered with such nonsense?

At least I don't just hem and haw and beat my gums without saying anything.

Here's your biology you asked for: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality the false science of evolution

Not surprisingly, the author of that nonsense was careful not to be identified.

I guess that's one way to avoid peer review.

 

[the_human_being]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

Let me google that for you

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

 

[Hollie]

You know...................if you believers are firmly entrenched in your belief that evolution is a myth, then consider one animal.....................

The humble dog.

ALL dog breeds, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, and all dogs in between are ALL descendants from one common ancestor.

The wolf.

All dog breeds can be traced back to them. It was because of selection and breeding by mankind that caused all of the different breeds to happen (and in only about 3,000 years).

It says in the Bible that man was created in the image of God, which means in some small way, we are supposed to be able to be like Him.

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

That would assume that there is a god that can do the breeding in the first place. What we know happens is that species are interdependent, but even more, that interdependency leads to selection. As I described earlier, ants and anteaters have been waging a war for millions of years, and the result has been the evolution of unique species (the anteater, and the species of ants they eat). Genetic isolation also leads to unique species. Many island species are dwarf species because a smaller size more efficiently utilized scarce island resources. So evolution can be explained as a natural process influenced by environmental factors, genetic mutations, and the interactions among species.

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

"If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases," he says, as he mindlessly and unwittingly goes on to arbitrarily preclude what cannot be logically precluded in the same breath: a divine origin. There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy! That's the baby talk of atheistic nincompoops imposing their unfalsifiable metaphysics as they conflate agency with methodology. The assertion that "God did it" and the process of deciphering of how God did it via the imperatives of mathematics and the conventions of science are not mutually exclusive on the very face of things.

I have not shut my mind to any possibility! That's you all day long, not I.

Evolutionary theory rests on a scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition, and the science of the atheist necessarily rests on the wholly faith-based metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Science does not and cannot precede logic or the philosophy of science. You have been refuted on this point over and over again by me on this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis
​

The Bible asserts a methodological naturalism for science, not your delusional metaphysical/ontological naturalism. God exists. The logic of absolute objectivity proves God exists and that God is necessarily the very Source and the Ground of the laws of thought and is the sustaining hand of natural and moral law and the physical laws of nature.

You nose-picking atheists of magic and superstition do not own science. God laughs at you.

The gawds laugh at your pointless cut and paste.

 

[the_human_being]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You cut and pasted unattributed "quotes" that are a staple of fundie christian ministries.

Let's take a look at just one of your pointless cut and paste "quotes":

"Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

You might as well have appended that nonsense with ".... because I say so".

Why do you think anyone would be bothered with such nonsense?

At least I don't just hem and haw and beat my gums without saying anything.

Here's your biology you asked for: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality the false science of evolution

Not surprisingly, the author of that nonsense was careful not to be identified.

I guess that's one way to avoid peer review.

You really are at a total loss on here aren't you Hollie? Sad.

 

[the_human_being]

Predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible and correctly displays the improbability of evolution. The probability of evolution occurring rounds down to zero — it’s not going to happen.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

"The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids (these are the chemicals that link up to form proteins) is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility. One wonders why this 'impossibility' is being taught as a 'fact of science' to millions of school children each year."

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You cut and pasted unattributed "quotes" that are a staple of fundie christian ministries.

Let's take a look at just one of your pointless cut and paste "quotes":

"Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

You might as well have appended that nonsense with ".... because I say so".

Why do you think anyone would be bothered with such nonsense?

At least I don't just hem and haw and beat my gums without saying anything.

Here's your biology you asked for: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality the false science of evolution

Here's the rebuttal:

"Five billion years is long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, this would provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

Says who? You?? LOL!!

 

[the_human_being]

You know...................if you believers are firmly entrenched in your belief that evolution is a myth, then consider one animal.....................

The humble dog.

ALL dog breeds, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, and all dogs in between are ALL descendants from one common ancestor.

The wolf.

All dog breeds can be traced back to them. It was because of selection and breeding by mankind that caused all of the different breeds to happen (and in only about 3,000 years).

It says in the Bible that man was created in the image of God, which means in some small way, we are supposed to be able to be like Him.

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

That would assume that there is a god that can do the breeding in the first place. What we know happens is that species are interdependent, but even more, that interdependency leads to selection. As I described earlier, ants and anteaters have been waging a war for millions of years, and the result has been the evolution of unique species (the anteater, and the species of ants they eat). Genetic isolation also leads to unique species. Many island species are dwarf species because a smaller size more efficiently utilized scarce island resources. So evolution can be explained as a natural process influenced by environmental factors, genetic mutations, and the interactions among species.

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

From your article: "Ultimately, those who spurn the authority of God's word do so because they cannot hear or will not heed the voice of the Good Sheppard."

That is your opinion, of which you are entitled. I for one, but I think I speak for many scientists, believe that science doesn't rely on what you or I do or do not believe. It is completely indifferent and must be so, not out of spite, but out of necessity. If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases, it must be indifferent. Why? Because if "god did it" and only "God did it" does it for you, explains everything about this world, then I don't need you in the laboratory. Because you have already shut your mind to all the possibilities for discovery that science has to offer. So go ahead and use your snake oil to treat cancer. I'll keep the oncologists' phone number in my rolodex, just in case.

"If we are to discover objective truth free of our personal biases," he says, as he mindlessly and unwittingly goes on to arbitrarily preclude what cannot be logically precluded in the same breath: a divine origin. There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy! That's the baby talk of atheistic nincompoops imposing their unfalsifiable metaphysics as they conflate agency with methodology. The assertion that "God did it" and the process of deciphering of how God did it via the imperatives of mathematics and the conventions of science are not mutually exclusive on the very face of things.

I have not shut my mind to any possibility! That's you all day long, not I.

Evolutionary theory rests on a scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition, and the science of the atheist necessarily rests on the wholly faith-based metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Science does not and cannot precede logic or the philosophy of science. You have been refuted on this point over and over again by me on this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis
​

The Bible asserts a methodological naturalism for science, not your delusional metaphysical/ontological naturalism. God exists. The logic of absolute objectivity proves God exists and that God is necessarily the very Source and the Ground of the laws of thought and is the sustaining hand of natural and moral law and the physical laws of nature.

You nose-picking atheists of magic and superstition do not own science. God laughs at you.

The gawds laugh at your pointless cut and paste.

It's not just the gawds laughing at you Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

Let me google that for you

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

 

[Hollie]

Your silly "card sequence" disaster is another pointless attempt at analogy you stole from your creation ministry.

Biological organisms evolve. They evolve in ways that can be unpredictable. You make the mistake common among the hyper-religious of creating these silly attempts at analogy that are hopelessly inept.

Advise your creation ministries to keep their carnival side show card tricks to themselves.

That is argument? Really? Why not prove the math wrong? Do something.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You cut and pasted unattributed "quotes" that are a staple of fundie christian ministries.

Let's take a look at just one of your pointless cut and paste "quotes":

"Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

You might as well have appended that nonsense with ".... because I say so".

Why do you think anyone would be bothered with such nonsense?

At least I don't just hem and haw and beat my gums without saying anything.

Here's your biology you asked for: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality the false science of evolution

Here's the rebuttal:

"Five billion years is long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, this would provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

Says who? You?? LOL!!

It's the will of the gawds!