Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[TemperateSeaIsland]

K, I read your presentation, and I fully understand what you are trying to communicate. Let me approach this problem from a different angle--nature is full of "crystals," which for purposes of this discussion I am defining very broadly. The valence shells around nuclei are "crystals." The eletrons around the nucleus like to arrange themselves in particular patterns based on the fundamental mathematics governing atoms. Atoms resist successive increases in the number of electrons surrounding the nucleus, and it gets increasingly more difficult to add electrons beyond the stable equilibrium. Nuclei themselves resist successive attempts to add additional protons to the nucleus. The more protons a human being tries to add to the nucleus, the more unstable the atom becomes. An artificially large atom is more complex than a smaller natural atom, and the artificial atoms are increasingly more unstable. Atomic nuclei can be properly thought of as crystalline structures of protons and neutrons.

I was going to post a response to this but I fear it may be pointless and I'm a bit busy with work at the moment so I'll leave you with a statement made by one of the founding fathers of atomic/molecular orbital theory...

It is not even wrong. Wolfgang Pauli

 

[pgp_protector]

I was going to post a response to this but I fear it may be pointless and I'm a bit busy with work at the moment so I'll leave you with a statement made by one of the founding fathers of atomic/molecular orbital theory...

It is not even wrong. Wolfgang Pauli

Rep Worthy

 

[TheGnome]

Something that entertains me is how creationists use complexity as an argument of design. Let's say you have two individuals who want to design a calculating machine. One individual creates this very large, very intricate machine about the size of your standard refrigerator, and it's able to do basic addition and subtraction. Another individual created a device that does the exact same thing, but that device uses far less parts and it much, much smaller in size. The second machine is far simpler than the former, but using a creationist understanding of complexity, the person who made the overelaborate calculating machine is more intelligent. Does this make sense?

Why would a deity that knows no limits need to make creatures with complex parts, increasing the probability of things going wrong, if that deity could make something as simple as possible? Simplicity, therefore, is the ultimate goal of any intelligent designer. An engineer is not going to design something using the most amount of parts, she would like to use the least amount of parts. Therefore complexity is evidence against an intelligent designer.

 

[mpok1519]

Thank you for making that point, Naraoia.

Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

But I don't think God wants us to just throw away all of the evidence the natural world shows us. How science relates to theology, and Christianity specifically, is one quandired among many communities; I think its more appropriate to say study both one's faith and the natural world with equal discretion, and hold both of them in high regard.

But I don't think that means we have to carve and discect religion and science both to see how they're interrelated, for the Bible is a spiritual document, not a scientific one. Science can't teach you more about your own spirituality, and the Bible can't teach one more about the scientific laws of the natural world.

 

[True_Blue]

Something that entertains me is how creationists use complexity as an argument of design. Let's say you have two individuals who want to design a calculating machine. One individual creates this very large, very intricate machine about the size of your standard refrigerator, and it's able to do basic addition and subtraction. Another individual created a device that does the exact same thing, but that device uses far less parts and it much, much smaller in size. The second machine is far simpler than the former, but using a creationist understanding of complexity, the person who made the overelaborate calculating machine is more intelligent. Does this make sense?

Why would a deity that knows no limits need to make creatures with complex parts, increasing the probability of things going wrong, if that deity could make something as simple as possible? Simplicity, therefore, is the ultimate goal of any intelligent designer. An engineer is not going to design something using the most amount of parts, she would like to use the least amount of parts. Therefore complexity is evidence against an intelligent designer.

I've given this a lot of thought. The writers of Star Trek have put a lot of creativity into inventing new types of aliens with all kinds of different properties, like two-dimensional beings, energy-based beings, etc. The problem is that we don't actually have the power or the intelligence to make life forms, let alone intelligent life forms, and we simply don't know whether we fall into the "simple calculator" category of sentient life, or the "complex calculator" category of sentient life. We do know, however, that we are calculators, and calculators are irredicibly complex--that is, a calculator could never, ever ever evolve from random chance. I suppose it's possible that God could have created people to be simpler than we are, but I for one am happy with how I've been made. The Bible says that our heavenly bodies will be far better than our current ones (God promises an upgrade), but it's impossible to know whether our heavenly bodies will be simpler or more complex than our bodies today. Perhaps notions of simplicity and complexity will be irrelevant in the afterlife.

Also, in the Beginning of Creation, the Second Law of Thermodynamics either didn't apply, or God directly intervened in creation to the extent that he fully negated the law. God even walked and talked with Adam. Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned. The 2nd Law is the curse of creation--it is the law of nature that will inevitably destroy us and every complex thing in the entire universe given enough time, even down to the cohesive force that holds atoms and subatomic particles together.

 

[Vene]

If the 2nd law didn't apply Adam must have been pretty darn cold. No entropy means no transfer of heat. He'd be a meat popsicle.

 

[True_Blue]

If the 2nd law didn't apply Adam must have been pretty darn cold. No entropy means no transfer of heat. He'd be a meat popsicle.

Of course you are right. However, the Order to Disorder concept I'm trying to convey has several components, and the classic 2nd Law is one component. There is also a concept called information entropy [source], and other types as well.

The terminology is difficult because there is not a single agreed-upon definition of the scope and definition of these concepts. The problem is compounded in discussions like this one where there is no consensus that such concepts are even true. We will have to muddle with the language we have been given.

 

[TheGnome]

I've given this a lot of thought. The writers of Star Trek have put a lot of creativity into inventing new types of aliens with all kinds of different properties, like two-dimensional beings, energy-based beings, etc. The problem is that we don't actually have the power or the intelligence to make life forms, let alone intelligent life forms, and we simply don't know whether we fall into the "simple calculator" category of sentient life, or the "complex calculator" category of sentient life. We do know, however, that we are calculators, and calculators are irredicibly complex--that is, a calculator could never, ever ever evolve from random chance. I suppose it's possible that God could have created people to be simpler than we are, but I for one am happy with how I've been made. The Bible says that our heavenly bodies will be far better than our current ones (God promises an upgrade), but it's impossible to know whether our heavenly bodies will be simpler or more complex than our bodies today. Perhaps notions of simplicity and complexity will be irrelevant in the afterlife.

This is why God is a philosophical nightmare. What's the point in creating something complex for the sake of it being complex? It can be comical, like in Rube Goldberg machines, but for what other reason would you use more parts for an object to perform a task that you could easily have done with less parts?

Complexity doesn't prove nor disprove a god, it's just a fallacious argument to use. Nature creates complex from the simple because of how nature works. It's amazing in a sense, but it doesn't defy logic. The thing is, when we talk about things that are designed, we talk about things that serve a function for its creator. For what purpose are we designed for? To show the glory of God? To whom? To himself? Certainly he's aware of his own power. It makes no logical sense. It's this fear of death, fear of impermanence, that drives the belief in an afterlife, and therefore God; knowledge of our eternal demise is the price we have to pay for intelligence.

Also, in the Beginning of Creation, the Second Law of Thermodynamics either didn't apply, or God directly intervened in creation to the extent that he fully negated the law. God even walked and talked with Adam. Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned. The 2nd Law is the curse of creation--it is the law of nature that will inevitably destroy us and every complex thing in the entire universe given enough time, even down to the cohesive force that holds atoms and subatomic particles together.

There is absolutely no evidence in any of that. Temperate mentioned the lovely phrase, "it's not even wrong." Not only is there no evidence to support your claims, but there is absolutely no way to test them.

The second law of thermodynamics is not hard to understand. It's very easy, I even explained it earlier if you remember. Everything violates the second law when defined by creationists. All I know is that the second law was covered in Chem I and II, Physics I, Bio I, Cell bio, probably organic chemistry in passing, and in two more lectures: biochem, and so I've had enough with the second law already. You don't need to make up a story to explain why the second law of thermodynamics exists. The second law is very logical because it explains that the energy that comes out of a reaction is less than what is needed to put in. In a system where you're not getting constant input of energy, eventually reactions will slow down until there is no more useable energy left to drive more reactions. That means that all of this will cease to exist at some point in the future. That's not hard to figure out.

 

[Tiberius]

You're right in your statement--the two lotteries are independent of each other. However, probability applies where there is uncertainty. If you yourself are uncertain, probability applies. Once you turn on the TV and see that you've won the lottery ticket, now you've discovered that you've beat the one in a million odds. As human beings, we don't get to see the TV until the afterlife. Until then, the atheists are hoping that their lottery ticket is a winner. I'm not a betting man--I'm betting that there is a God and there is a Heaven and a Hell. That's why I've never gone to Vegas, and why I've never bought a lottery ticket or ever bet money on a game of chance (to my knowledge).

Aw, geez, this isn't Pascal's wager, is it? You really think that God's going to let you into Heaven when you believed merely as a self-insurance policy? Surely any decent and fair God will value honest disbelief over selfish belief, yes?

Oh, and could you please respond to THIS post?

 

[mpok1519]

"What about Aliens?

Assuming that aliens seeded our planet or made evolution happen begs the question of how the aliens themselves came to be. Keep in mind that there are less than 10^100 subatomic particles in the entire universe out to 14 billion light years. If you believe in parallel universes, string theory, and interuniversal travel, let’s add in a trillion trillion extra universes (10^24), and let’s assume each universe has a density of 1 g/cm^3 (our universe has a density of (9.9 × 10-30 g/cm^3) with interacting subatomic particles, such that the interaction could create any kind of arbitrary alien life form imaginable (with 50,000 parts or more). That increases the number of parts available to interact to about 10^154. So subtract 154 from my number above. Let’s give such alien life forms a trillion trillion years to form and give each particle a million interactions per year. Subtract 30. Let’s assume that a million combinations of those 50,000 parts would result in a functional life form. Subtract 6. 7500-154-30-6 = 7310. 1 / (1*10^7310) is still impossible."

now explain in layman's terms how thats impossible? Theres millions, and millions of galaxies out there, and 10^Trillions more that we potentially do not know about.


Also, you spoke of having affirmative proof of God earlier; yet if you have proof of his existence, how is it you still have faith when you know He exists?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Of course you are right. However, the Order to Disorder concept I'm trying to convey has several components, and the classic 2nd Law is one component. There is also a concept called information entropy [source], and other types as well.

The terminology is difficult because there is not a single agreed-upon definition of the scope and definition of these concepts. The problem is compounded in discussions like this one where there is no consensus that such concepts are even true. We will have to muddle with the language we have been given.

So, am I right in saying that rather than just accepting the coherent scientific understandings of physiucs as observable today, we shouldn't believe them to be correct because there MIGHT have been different, unknown physical laws in the past, of which there is no evidence, in operation?

Do IO have that right?

Well hell, I'm convinced

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...

Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned.

...snip...

Then what was the tree of life for ?

 

[True_Blue]

This is why God is a philosophical nightmare. What's the point in creating something complex for the sake of it being complex? It can be comical, like in Rube Goldberg machines, but for what other reason would you use more parts for an object to perform a task that you could easily have done with less parts?

God had already created angels [outside our spacetime continuum] before he got around to creating people. Angels are eternal. They don't have physical bodies. They have no moving parts that can break down. They seem to have the power to ghost in, out, and through physical spaces. So the question is are they simple or complex? I have no idea. They could very well be phenomenally simple. If so, then God actually did create simple things before he created complex things. So why did he create complex things like us? Why don't you ask him? I believe God created us as material beings because he likes matter. He likes our physical bodies. Genesis 1:31. He also has a purpose for our physicality vice angels that he has not yet revealed to us.

 

[True_Blue]

So, am I right in saying that rather than just accepting the coherent scientific understandings of physiucs as observable today, we shouldn't believe them to be correct because there MIGHT have been different, unknown physical laws in the past, of which there is no evidence, in operation?

Do IO have that right?

Well hell, I'm convinced

There's no reason to believe that the physical laws of the entire universe have been different since God rested on Day 7. However, God can and does locally change physical laws as he wills. For our scientific purposes, physical laws must be presumed immutable since the end of Day 6. It's clear that God withdrew from Creation to a limited extent after Adam sinned.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

There's no reason to believe that the physical laws of the entire universe have been different since God rested on Day 7. However, God can and does locally change physical laws as he wills. For our scientific purposes, physical laws must be presumed immutable since the end of Day 6. It's clear that God withdrew from Creation to a limited extent after Adam sinned.

Not that I believe this for a moment; but for the sake of discussion, I will go with it for a moment. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the biblical day 7 the laws of physics have remained unchanged. This is impossible, because as AIG keeps pointing out for the biblical flood to work the laws of physics must have been different during that time.

Basically YEC are just making it up as they go along to suit their fairy tale.

 

[True_Blue]

Aw, geez, this isn't Pascal's wager, is it? You really think that God's going to let you into Heaven when you believed merely as a self-insurance policy? Surely any decent and fair God will value honest disbelief over selfish belief, yes?

Oh, and could you please respond to THIS post?

Pascal's Wager doesn't "convince" anyone to accept Jesus. I accepted Jesus because I wanted to get to know God, not because I wanted to make an economically rational decision. Pascal's Wager's only function is to show that people who don't accept Jesus don't make decisions on the basis of logic. People who gamble in Vegas do so because they want to have fun, because they are addicted, or perhaps because they think they will make money. None of those rationale involve logic. People who don't believe in God do so for many of the same reasons. Logic or economics is not one of those reasons. Otherwise, Pascal's Wager would cause everyone on Earth to believe in a religion that has both an infinite Heaven and an infinite Hell as a component. To my knowledge, only Christianity is such a religion.

With respect to your post, I'll start by saying that I wish you had put a bit more consideration into it. Evolution properly understood is reductionistic. It explains "survival of the fittest" rather than "arrival of the fittest." For many of the same reasons I've enunciated on this thread, plus a few more I've enunciated on other threads, natural selection and mutation are poor engines to change one major kind of life form into another.

 

[True_Blue]

Not that I believe this for a moment; but for the sake of discussion, I will go with it for a moment. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the biblical day 7 the laws of physics have remained unchanged. This is impossible, because as AIG keeps pointing out for the biblical flood to work the laws of physics must have been different during that time.

Basically YEC are just making it up as they go along to suit their fairy tale.

The dynamics of the Flood are sufficient for several new threads on their own. There were probably no snow-capped mountains pre-Flood (uncomfortable to walk around naked on a high mountain). Moreover, the Bible indicated that the water primarily came from underneath the ground (remember Lord of the Rings and Gandalf falling with the Balrog?), more than likely through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. "On that day all the fountains of the Great Deep burst forth..." It's possible an asteroid cracked the crust like an egg-shell, perhaps where Iceland is today (the asteroid and Iceland aspect is my own pet theory, which I've never shared with anyone). Regardless of the theory, the geological conditions [not the laws of physics] that ignited the Great Flood could not be repeated today, which fully fits with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Great Flood and the secondary effects also fully explain all the prehistoric cataclysmic effects that have been puzzling evolutionists for decades.

 

[Cabal]

So, am I right in saying that rather than just accepting the coherent scientific understandings of physiucs as observable today, we shouldn't believe them to be correct because there MIGHT have been different, unknown physical laws in the past, of which there is no evidence, in operation?

Do IO have that right?

Well hell, I'm convinced

Yup, also known as the "dad hoc" school of thought.

You'd think people who espoused this position would shut their pieholes as it leaves them in no stronger position than supporters of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[True_Blue]

now explain in layman's terms how thats impossible? Theres millions, and millions of galaxies out there, and 10^Trillions more that we potentially do not know about.

Also, you spoke of having affirmative proof of God earlier; yet if you have proof of his existence, how is it you still have faith when you know He exists?

To answer your first question, if under the previous assumptions the probability of the very first life form is 1/10^7500, divide that very small number by the number of planets you think there are. If you think there are 10^1000 planets in the universe capable of supporting life, then the probability drops to 1/10^6500. That's still impossible. If you think I've used bad assumptions or bad math, I encourage you to run your own numbers with your own assumptions and judge for yourself. If you do that, you will be the first non-Christian I've ever encountered, either in person or on the Web, who has ever done so.

To answer your second question, the amount of faith I have needed over the course of my life has progressively declined the more I study science and the more I study the Bible. At this point, I still need just an infinitesimal bit of faith. On the flip side, I am not a particularly emotional person, and I tend to think too much. That means other aspects of my Christian walk haven't been as good as they should be. For example, knowledge that God exists doesn't necessarily mean that I trust him to guide my life in the best possible way. I too often try to take charge of my life and do things my way rather than be patient and let God take the wheel.

 

[Baggins]

The dynamics of the Flood are sufficient for several new threads on their own. There were probably no snow-capped mountains pre-Flood (uncomfortable to walk around naked on a high mountain). Moreover, the Bible indicated that the water primarily came from underneath the ground (remember Lord of the Rings and Gandalf falling with the Balrog?), more than likely through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. "On that day all the fountains of the Great Deep burst forth..." It's possible an asteroid cracked the crust like an egg-shell, perhaps where Iceland is today (the asteroid and Iceland aspect is my own pet theory, which I've never shared with anyone). Regardless of the theory, the geological conditions [not the laws of physics] that ignited the Great Flood could not be repeated today, which fully fits with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Great Flood and the secondary effects also fully explain all the prehistoric cataclysmic effects that have been puzzling evolutionists for decades.

Imagination 10/10

Scientific evidence 0/10