Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-29-2011, 2:54 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Why were you not angry at medicine since medicine or God did not help. You seem to only be angry about people praying, but, not at the medicine. Seems like the outlook of a child.
Medicine is PROVEN. It is the science of healing. It can be measured and validated by third parties. You seem to have this blockage in your brain that won't allow you to understand empirical evidence. Prayer is nothing but "hope" and "blind faith". It cannot be compared with science. Even if God was real isn't it clear he doesn't answer prayer? The man does not listen, it's evident in everyday life.


Quote:
Evolution is just a theory, thus it is faith that they will find the answer. Evolution is a battle of survival of the fittest. If your version is weak, then it will cease to exist. That is what evolution does. If you actually saw the math for everything to come together to create life (which we seem to not to be able to do except for one brief experiment in a non livable environment), it is by all definition impossible. That means regardless of your made up states on how many scientists believe in evolution (evolution of man starting from some space dust), they and you are still relying on faith. Even if evolution is correct, it still does not exclude a high power breathing conscience in to the human. To deny the math is being intellectually dishonest which you seem to take great pride in. I respect the fact there can be both. You on the other hand have a agenda, thus biased, thus non-scientific in your rational.
Do us all a favor. Look up scientific theory and then look up the definition of faith. Do you see the difference? There is no "faith" in scientific theory. Period. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. And as usual, when it comes to opposing view points you dismiss the subject matter experts. Gravity is just a "theory", the sun orbiting the earth is just a "theory", the germ theory of disease is just a "theory". Are you also opposed to those "theories"? Are they "faith" too?

Quote:
You are sure free with calling people a liar. You sound like a spoiled brat. Made up stats by you do not equal facts.
This coming from the guy who tried telling us there were chariots in the red sea.
Here are my made up stats;

"No. According to Newsweek magazine, 99.85% of American earth and life scientists accept biological evolution as a fact. Gallup polls also show that 95% of all scientists accept evolution, though it should be noted that this figure includes scientists who study in unrelated fields, like Computer Science, Engineering, etc. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact."

But don't take my word for it. Here are just two sources.

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture...ID_100518.html
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newslett...06/story03.htm



Quote:
No circle. There are historical records outside the bible and well as in the bible.
Please, enlighten me. And did you guys notice how he referred to the bible again? Yep, you reason in a circle. It's all you can do because like I said earlier your religious books cannot stand on their own two feet.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-29-2011, 4:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Medicine is PROVEN. It is the science of healing. It can be measured and validated by third parties. You seem to have this blockage in your brain that won't allow you to understand empirical evidence. Prayer is nothing but "hope" and "blind faith". It cannot be compared with science. Even if God was real isn't it clear he doesn't answer prayer? The man does not listen, it's evident in everyday life.
No Crap Sherlock. I was mocking you. Of course medicine is proven to certain extent (at least as the Pharma Companies will allow). I was interesting in your skewed sense of anger at those who prayed for their loved ones and the people still died, while seemingly give those who practice medicine a pass on your anger. If you are going to be angry because someone died, don't be angry at just God for it for not saving them (your child like sense of fairness). A reasonable angry person would at least be angry at both. I think you don't read for comprehension too well. I already addressed this for you. Are you still raging so bad you can't read?

Quote:
Do us all a favor. Look up scientific theory and then look up the definition of faith. Do you see the difference? There is no "faith" in scientific theory. Period. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. And as usual, when it comes to opposing view points you dismiss the subject matter experts. Gravity is just a "theory", the sun orbiting the earth is just a "theory", the germ theory of disease is just a "theory". Are you also opposed to those "theories"? Are they "faith" too?
The math adds up for gravity. It has been measured. The sun orbit is measured. Have not read up on germ theory. If they can be measured, then they are closer to fact than theory. Evolution has been observed in some items. Human existence and beginning of life, not so much. Again, the math for spontaneous "life" is well beyond the mathematic probability. Ask the "scientists" all you want. evolution can have various answers depending on time frame and species. Christians believe in evolution of species, they do not believe in spontaneous life. You are not being scientifically honest with yourself. Spontaneous life then human from ooze is pretty much faith because the math and science do not support it. If anything, the math supports a creator if you had to deduce a honest answer.

Quote:
Please, enlighten me. And did you guys notice how he referred to the bible again? Yep, you reason in a circle. It's all you can do because like I said earlier your religious books cannot stand on their own two feet.
Do you even think. The discussion is around the bible. Do you even read the stuff you post.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-29-2011, 4:49 PM Reply   
On the matter of "scientists" evolution:

"We believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. We believe this gap to be of such a nature [that] it cannot be bridged with the current conceptions of biology" (Schurtzenberger in Mathematical Challenged to the New-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, pp. 73, 75).
Charles Darwin wrote,
"... Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure though slow steps." (The Origin of Species, ch. 6)
Thus, Darwin conceded that...
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (ibid)
According to Dr. Robin Berhoft, MD:
"DNA does not function unless it has several dozen regulatory proteins present. These are produced by DNA, but must be present before DNA can actually produce them. You need the whole genetic system all at once. There is no value in having just part of it. Asking the genetics system to produce itself and its autoregulatory proteins simultaneously is like asking your neighbor to become her own grand-mother." (Robin Berhoft, "Confronting Creation's Complexities - Darwinism Isn't Fit to Survive" This Rock, Sept 2003, Vol 14, No. 7)
The need for the whole genetics system all at once and not by small increments accumulated over time as demanded by Darwinian theory is yet another converging clue within science which points to a Creator.

Of course faced with this dilemma, evolutionists have theorized:
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication [Jeffares et al. 1998; Pool et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999]. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids [Böhler et al. 1995].
A nifty little response they've put together at first glance. However ...
According to Evolutionist Robert Shapiro,


"The [RNA theory] must be considered either a speculation or a matter of faith" (Rober Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, (New York: Summit, 1986), 189)


Why would he say that? A matter of faith?
According to origins-of-life biologist Dr. Stephen Meyer,


For a single stand of RNA to replicate, there must be an identical RNA molecule close by. To have a reasonable chance of having two identical RNA molecules of the right length would require a library of ten billion billion billion billion billion billion RNA molecules--and that effectively rules out any chance origin of a primitive replicating system.
Jay Roth, former professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Connecticut and an expert in nucleic acids, said whether the original template for the first living system was RNA or DNA, the same problem exists.
[T]his template must have been very complex indeed. For this template and this template alone, it appears it is reasonable at present to suggest the possibility of a creator." (Jay Roth, "the Piling of Coincidence on Coincidence," in: Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, ediors, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, (Chicago: Open Court, 1992), 199
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-29-2011, 4:54 PM Reply   
Do you believe Man is merely the most fortunate animal on the planet?"

The Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod wrote:
The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning.
But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms. ( Monod J., Chance and Necessity, Collins, 1972)


"We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a “philosophical necessity.” It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."(Dr. George Wald, "The Origin of Life" Scientific American, 191:46, May 1954).

Harold Urey, who won the Nobel Prize in 1934, wrote:

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It's just that its complexity is so great, that it's hard for us to imagine that it did" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan 4, 1962, pg. 4)

Last edited by deltahoosier; 07-29-2011 at 4:56 PM. Reason: add citation to quote
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-29-2011, 5:47 PM Reply   
Here is one more salvo in this discussion for what it is worth. You wanted some sort of proof:

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_odds.asp

What are the odds?

The mathematical probabilities against the spontaneous generation of life are sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument for creation. The odds in favor of the chance formation of a functional simple cell are acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1040,000.[111] The scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle, a renowned mathematician from Cambridge known for many popular science works,[112] has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For a more graspable notion of the improbability, he has calculated the odds of the accidental formation of a simple living cell to be roughly comparable to the odds of rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice.[113]

As another comparison, Hoyle asks, what are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747 and just accidentally assemble it so as to leave it sitting there all set for take-off? “So small as to be negligible,” Hoyle says, “even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe.”[114] Although not a creationist, Hoyle’s calculations have convinced him that there must have been some “intelligence” behind the emergence of life on earth.

Likewise, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick also arrived at the theory that life could never have evolved by chance on planet Earth.[115] Because he is a co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, an accomplishment which became a cornerstone of genetics and which is widely regarded as one of the most important discoveries of 20th century biology,[116] his conclusion is particularly noteworthy — especially since he is an atheist!

Why would these (and many other) distinguished scientists come to such conclusions? For a clearer perspective, consider the following “coin-toss” analogy: Suppose I announce that I am going to repeatedly flip a coin and hope to come up with a sequence of all heads. So I proceed to flip the coin, and it comes up heads. You say, “Okay.” I flip it a second time, and it comes up heads again. You say, “Okay.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads again. You say “Hmmm, okay.” Say I flip it again, and it comes up heads a fourth time. You say “Hmmm.” Say I flip it again, and it comes up heads a fifth time. You say “Wait a minute, what’s going on here?” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a sixth time. You say “Stop, this isn’t fair.” I say, “Why?” You say, “It isn’t random. You’re doing something to make that coin come up heads each time.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a seventh time. I say, “Look, millions of people have flipped coins throughout history. This was bound to happen sooner or later.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads an eighth time. You say, “Come on, what are you doing?” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a ninth time. I say, “Nothing. Really! I’m just flipping this coin and it keeps coming up heads by chance.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a tenth time. You say, “You’re a liar. What do you take me for, some sort of fool?”

Now, if it is true that over a million people have tossed coins throughout history then maybe you should have waited until at least 20 throws (since 220 is over a million) before considering crying “foul.” But most people, in fact, won’t. Why did the observer in the above example not wait that long? Because after 10 tries she concluded that she could call the coin-thrower a liar based on the non-random results. Statistically, she would have only one chance in a thousand (1 in 210) of being wrong!

Given the lower probabilities of the origin-of-life issue, it is thus consistent to conclude that life did not spontaneously originate by chance. A person who comes to such a conclusion would have less than a 1 in 1040,000 (that’s 10 followed by 40,000 zeros) chance of being wrong, solely on the basis of mathematical probabilities. In any case, this person is not to be taken for some sort of fool.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 07-29-2011 at 5:57 PM. Reason: bold a quote
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-29-2011, 5:50 PM Reply   
and a continuation of the cut and paste-athon:

http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_...n_of_life.html

Dr. Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a primordial soup. Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state: "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a ‘chance’ act."

In the 1970’s British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth – a bacterium.

Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Hoyle stated: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle also concluded that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."

Hoyle’s calculations may seem impressive, but they don’t even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

Example 1
Consider this. The odds of winning a state lottery are about 1 chance in ten million. The odds of someone winning the state lottery every single week from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!

A more detailed estimate for spontaneous generation has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that was super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. This number is so large that it would require several thousand books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that an entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!

Example 2
In his book, Origins–A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro gives a very realistic illustration of how one might estimate the odds of the spontaneous generation of life. Shapiro begins by allowing one billion years (5 x 1014 minutes) for spontaneous biogenesis. Next he notes that a simple bacterium can make a copy of itself in twenty minutes, but he assumes that the first life was much simpler. So he allows each trial assembly to last one minute, thus providing 5 x 1014 trial assemblies in 1 billion years to make a living bacterium. Next he allows the entire ocean to be used as the reaction chamber. If the entire ocean volume on planet earth were divided into reaction flasks the size of a bacterium we would have 1036 separate reaction flasks. He allows each reaction flask to be filled with all the necessary building blocks of life. Finally, each reaction chamber is allowed to proceed through one-minute trial assemblies for one billion years. The result is that there would be 1051 tries available in 1 billion years. According to Morowitz we need 10100,000,000,000 trial assemblies!

Example 3
Here's another great example of how chance disproves evolution theory. Suppose we have 10 small blank discs. We number them from 1 – 10 and as we do we throw each into a bucket. So in this example, the question is: How many attempts would it take to randomly draw out the discs in order from 1 to 10? Only one disc is randomly selected from the bucket at a time, noted, and tossed back in the bucket. What is the probability of selecting all ten discs in order?

Since each disc has only one number on it, there is one chance in ten (1/10) of selecting it. The probability of selecting the first one followed by the second one is 1/10 x 1/10 or 1 in 100. To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or 1x1010. This means that the discs would be selected in the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way, ‘chance’ requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.

Let's take that example one step further and say there is a bucket with 27 wooden squares inside. Each square has one letter of the alphabet on it and one square is blank. How many attempts would it take to randomly pull letters out one at a time in order to spell the phrase ‘the theory of evolution?’

Each letter of the alphabet plus one space has 1 chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase ‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore chance will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes.

This computes to only one success in a mind-boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3 x 1032). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then nature could not even have created even this simple sentence, much less any protein, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation.

The information on the discs and squares in the examples above represent the genetic information in DNA. DNA is the storehouse of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until 2001 that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now know that the DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill an entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica.

It would take nature 25 billion years to create the correct sequence of 27 letters. Clearly, it could not have correctly sequenced 3 billion chemicals to make even the simplest life form. So if nature couldn’t create life, Who did?

Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote: "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-29-2011, 8:22 PM Reply   
deltahoosier,

Have you decided to turn this into a competition on who can paste the most pseudoscience? I like how you quote the very few advocate scientists for intelligent design. For every one scientist you can find in favor of intelligent design I can counter with 100 pro-evolution scientists so why play that game? Clearly, you will lose as already proven by poll after poll. And way to lose everyone who was even a little bit interested in this conversation with your 4 very looong posts in a row.
There are reasons while the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists don't believe what you believe. And you better ask yourself again who is angry. Trust me bud, this doesn't make me angry I think it's fun. So don't worry I'm not mad at you, nor do I wish any harm to you. I'm more surprised that people don't stand up to junk science. I'm sure there are a lot of people reading this thread who are biting their tongues. I will respond to what I think is relevant when I get more time. That you can bet on.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       07-29-2011, 9:30 PM Reply   
Life 8,000 ft on the ocean floor seems to come from inside the earths core, pretty close to life from nothing.
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_P.../ps_vents.html
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-29-2011, 9:43 PM Reply   
Don't think that fits the definition of spontaneous generation (life) though it is pretty cool.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       07-30-2011, 2:33 AM Reply   
for those of you who are Christians, you will never be able to "win" the argument against science. That's not really what it's about for "us" anyway. "We" believe that Christ was the son of God, and that he died on the cross for us. It's really that simple. If you believe that, you will go to heaven.

Most scholar-ed Christians recognize that the Bible was written by man and that the included books were chosen by man. There are many writings that were left out.

The prevailing thought is that Jesus was born from a virgin. His birth was from an immaculate conception. There is no way to prove such a conception, but I believe it to be true. If you think of me as an idiot for doing so, then so be it. You will not persuade me with science, nor will I be able to persuade you.
I don't think that I really care......

My dad's wife is one one the smartest people that I know. She graduated from a top 3 law school and has worked for the brightest firms in the country. She has also worked for 2 federal judges. She is very difficult to debate against, but well worth the time and effort. She also went to seminary and is an ordained minister. She does not believe in a "Hell".

I find this disturbing. Her rational is that a loving God would not allow for such a place.

She is a shining example of how science and logic aren't able to measure religion. Over thinking leads to cloudy faith. Sometimes you just have to believe what you believe.

I'm sorry if this hurts some of your arguments against Whisky Tango....I mean Jimmy, but that's really the cruxst of it. You can't win a science debate. But, he will be at the Pearly Gates trying to logic his way in.......it won't work.

If he is wrong, hell is to pay
If I am wrong, I just go on living whatever afterlife there is that doesn't include a "Hell"

my money is on the Christian way...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-30-2011, 2:58 AM Reply   
Delta, I don't think probability can be efficiently used to disprove evolution. What if you, Jimmy, Cliff, and I took a deck of cards and we deal out all 52 cards. We each have 13 cards. We observe what each card we have in our respective hand. Now, we collect all the cards, shuffle, and then deal out another hand as a matter of fact, we could repeat this process a billion times, and we may never get the exact hand that we had the first time we dealt the cards. Does that mean we never had that first hand?
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-30-2011, 9:02 AM Reply   
Delta.

First, like I previously mentioned, all your references refer to the few scientists with Christian agendas. People like Fred Hoyle who rejects the big bang, and Stephen C. Meyer who has dedicated his life to the creationist cause. These scientists are very controversial and largely discredited among professional scientists. Again, don't take my word for it do some independent research on these guys. Also, I'm not sure you actually understand evolution. Have you actually studied it? You see, there are actually 5 parts to evolution. 1) Evolution happens - populations change over time. 2) Evolution usually happens gradually - Populations change over hundreds to thousands of years. 3) Speciation occurs - One species change into two or more species. 4) All species share common ancestry - As a result of splitting of lineages from one ancestral life form. AKA, the branching bush of life. 5) Much of the evolutionary change was caused by a process of natural selection (Darwin) which is the sole process producing adaption. All of this supported by empirical evidence that can be verified by independent third parties and accepted as fact by the scientific community. Perhaps if you spent 1/100th of the time studying evolution as you did the bible you would understand how silly your stories are.

Now, onto the topic of abiogenesis which you are essentially trying to debate about. I think Jeremy pretty much summed up your use of "poker odds thinking". And it's been refuted as shown by Richard Dawkins Weasel program. Basically, the premise is that random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection is different from pure chance. Please do educate yourself by reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

Cliff,
Quote:
I'm sorry if this hurts some of your arguments against Whisky Tango....I mean Jimmy, but that's really the cruxst of it.
Did you just call me white trash? If so, that's a first in my lifetime. Well, at least you seem able to distinguish the difference between science and faith. Only the faithful would say, "no matter what you say or do, no matter the evidence, It would never cause me to revise my beliefs". That statement speaks for itself and is used exclusively with regards to religion. In no other aspect of society could you get away with saying something so stupid. Also, on the idea that "if he is wrong, hell is to pay. If I am wrong, I just go on living whatever afterlife there is that doesn't include a "Hell". It's absurd to think that God, being just and omniscient, would not be able to see through this deceptive strategy on behalf of the "believer", nullifying the benefits of the wager. Furthermore, you forget to take into account the numerous other world religions. Perhaps you should commit to them all to increase your odds?

Last edited by strife; 07-30-2011 at 9:05 AM.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-30-2011, 12:59 PM Reply   
No one is doubting that evolution if various sorts happens. You are confusing the argument.

This is issue is spontaneous generation on the 1st order. That is the crux of the argument. Then you can get into the evolution as well in regards to random DNA coming to life, then happening to turn from reptile to mammal, then some how along the line gaining conscience. Like one of the people I read said. Human can send people to the moon and soon other planets. You would think that the second place organism should be able to at least master fire. When do evolutionist say that happened that we mastered fire? Hundreds of thousands of years ago?

I don't think that nobel prize winning scientists and and other self proclaimed atheist are heading out to help those poor dumb religious folks by spouting off about intelligent design. It is not christian scientist. They are scientist of different brands with nobel prizes no less and self proclaim atheists. If you are arguing that these scientist are biased then what does that say about your faith in science? Is it just Christian scientists are biased but atheist scientist are not? You are not being intellectually honest.

You are argument does about the cards do not hold up. You already started with cards for starters. Second, you will ultimately end up with the same sequence of cards are some point. How about you start with a bowl of chicken noodle soup and a beer. Watch it until it becomes playing cards and four of drunk monkeys playing those cards. We don't even have to worry about the sequence of cards. Just figure up that line of math to get us to that part? Actually, try this. Put a deck of cards in a monkey enclosure and see how long it takes monkey's to pick up the cards and deal out 13 a piece?

Your weasel program link even states, "that it would be extraordinarily improbable (impossible in my words) (this is known as Hoyle's fallacy). Rather, evolution proceeds by hill climbing, as in adaptive landscapes." For starters it proves my case in regards to the math of spontaneous generation then it makes a miracle just to talking about evolution in a basic context. It proves nothing in regards to your argument.

In regards to the referenced Hoyle's fallacy:

The link sound a little bit of the way you come across. It states that no evolutionary biologist would do such and such. I REJECT THIS LINK. a quote for the main argument by the author:
Quote:
he modern evolutionary synthesis explains how complex cellular structures evolved by analysing the intermediate steps required for precellular life. It is these intermediate steps that are omitted in creationist arguments, which is the cause of their over-estimating of the improbability of the entire process.[1]
Then you look at the ling for precullular life the author holds his argument on:

Quote:
A pre-cell is a hypothetical lipid-based structure that, under the RNA world hypothesis, could have confined RNA in ancient times.
Hypothetical at best but was addressed in my earlier post:

Quote:
Of course faced with this dilemma, evolutionists have theorized:
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication [Jeffares et al. 1998; Pool et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999]. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids [Böhler et al. 1995].
A nifty little response they've put together at first glance. However ...
According to Evolutionist Robert Shapiro,


"The [RNA theory] must be considered either a speculation or a matter of faith" (Rober Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, (New York: Summit, 1986), 189)


Why would he say that? A matter of faith?
According to origins-of-life biologist Dr. Stephen Meyer,


For a single stand of RNA to replicate, there must be an identical RNA molecule close by. To have a reasonable chance of having two identical RNA molecules of the right length would require a library of ten billion billion billion billion billion billion RNA molecules--and that effectively rules out any chance origin of a primitive replicating system.
Jay Roth, former professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Connecticut and an expert in nucleic acids, said whether the original template for the first living system was RNA or DNA, the same problem exists.
[T]his template must have been very complex indeed. For this template and this template alone, it appears it is reasonable at present to suggest the possibility of a creator." (Jay Roth, "the Piling of Coincidence on Coincidence," in: Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, ediors, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, (Chicago: Open Court, 1992), 199
You basically pointed to a link that ultimately boiled itself down to a diatribe by a person with a agenda. I assume a evolution biologist (the title has agenda written all over it). They quote the who RNA line which is debunked already by my previous post.



Now onto your final frontier.

This is a fine wiki link regarding abiogenesis:

Small summation of the modern methods from the article,

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.
No one has synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[35][36] The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoesis for this process,[37] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.
Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell
Bernal suggested that evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2.[38]
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-30-2011, 3:24 PM Reply   
"Second, you will ultimately end up with the same sequence of cards are some point."

That is not necessarily true. You could never have the exact same hand or it may so happen that you deal it the next time. It's just like the odds of winning the powerball. Let's say it's 10 million to 1 that I choose all 5 or 6 correct numbers. Does that mean that if I play 10 million times that I'm going to for sure win?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-30-2011, 4:25 PM Reply   
The math says you will. Though I think that your example helps me but I know what you are saying. You are betting that you don't get the sequence given the odds. In spontaneous generation, skeptics are saying you won't but you are betting that we did.

That is even to start life. Then to have everything to keep happening the way it would have had to with all the other just right things that had to happen and those odds and statistics. Evolution would say it is normal to have several variations of monkey and of course have a version of man. That is what evolution is correct? Means you reach a certain being and then there are various small changes over time and the family tree branches and we have different types of related species correct? That is what you guys are arguing right?

Then at the end of the day, we are saying our last step was from monkey to a variation of man and that variation of man then ended up with this version of human over thousands if not millions of years. Then why is their no other version of man? There are other variations of monkeys that we supposedly came from through the step. Why no different version of man? Did this magical evolutionary method that has this wonderful tree like structure all of a sudden get stuck in Kentucky and stop forking? Why is man different that any other being on this planet? Sure we have minor genetic differences but we are almost exactly the same. DNA make up and the works. Pieces parts, you name it.

After you answer the odds issue which is still up for debate. Figure out the only one man. Why no other being has conscience?

I am extremely skeptical. Even the so called experts in favor of the evolution from nothing still have no real evidence. It is all speculation. All cultures not even related around the globe have some sort of draw to a God. Why is that? We had not cross pollination of culture. How did they all know? You would have no reason to even suspect a God.

At the end of the day, I still contend that the odds of this are still very long if not improbable. I don't think it is absolutely out of the question. If there is a chance then there is a chance. It is still a matter of faith that you know for certain. No one has seen it or even reproduced it. At that point it is a matter of faith. Scientists are driving to find this conclusion in a matter of faith that they are correct. That is fine, but they do not know regardless of scientific method. I can admit that. I can also admit that I absolutely don't know if God exists but I have seen things that prove it enough to me. I have seen miracle recovery from a poisoning that the doctors said medically has not happened. I have seen things that have come to pass in regards to human history and the bible. In my book and many others, they have seen more things happen relationship to God than people have seen in regards to spontaneous generation.

Put it this way, if I told you that I just saw something come to life you would call me a liar. If I saw a UFO, a great subset would call me a liar. If I saw a ghost most of the population would call me a liar (actually many would believe the UFO and Ghost angle but not in God). Yet, many of these people believe that life just started.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 07-30-2011 at 4:28 PM. Reason: a
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       07-30-2011, 7:00 PM Reply   
Jimmy your 100,000 years or 250,000 years is simply a guess by people who throw numbers out that come out of their arses. 2 mathematicians in the 70's tried to figure out how long humans have been on the earth. They took into account, the current population, average number of babies being born, sickness plagues wars famines etc...they came to the conclusion that man was probably on the earth around 4500 years. That is a fact, math doesn't lie. It is what it is.

When you go back around 4500 years you come to Noahs flood around that time. As usual the Bible lines up perfectly with science. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but one day we will all stand before the God of the Bible and give account for our lives, what did we do it? As for me, I followed Christ, put my trust in him and my family, if you die without Christ believe me my friend you will have all eternity to think about this thread, and what a sad time that will be. God speed to you Jimmy.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       07-30-2011, 7:35 PM Reply   
no Jimmy, I didn't mean anything hateful by that. I just used that reference because Whiskey Tango used to argue with every one about everything. There was once speculation that he had other identities here too. It was thought that he would argue both sides of the fence using different aliases.

I really understand most of your arguements on most topics. On this particular topic, we just don't agree. I'm okay with that. I don't think of you in a negative light because of it. I just find it sad that Christianity seems to be less prevalent today than it was when I was a kid
Old    Darren Yearsley (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       07-31-2011, 12:34 AM Reply   
Wow, you guys should get a room
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       07-31-2011, 8:55 AM Reply   
" if you die without Christ believe me my friend you will have all eternity to think about this thread, and what a sad time that will be."

This 'if you don't believe, you're going to hell' b.s. seems to come up in all of these arguments in one way or another. Why do you people in throw that out there? Is it because you're trying to scare people into believe your particular god? Do you guys think that atheists can flip a switch and just start believing? It doesn't work that way. You can't just make yourself believe. When looking at all the religions and gods that man has made up, a lot of folks see that is's just that - made up by man. There is no way to just believe? And if there was, why your religion or God? Most people on earth believe in something else. It really depends on where you grew up and what the prevalent religion is. Don't forget, we're all pretty much the same. We all believe that all those religions and gods are ridiculous and made up. The only difference between us is the belief in one less god - yours. When you understand why you don't believe in all those other gods and religions, you'll understand why most people on this planet don't believe in yours either.

If there was a god, with any understanding whatsoever, you'd think he'd well understand why people don't believe in him.

And Flight, it's ironic that you state something about 'bury your head in the sand' right after stating that the people have been earth for 4500 years. You're obviously the one with no clue whatsoever.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:51 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us