Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[Aerika]

Joshua !0-12
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

This is another awkward problem Creationist need to work out.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

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.

This is magical mysticism; totally the product of your imagination.

Please supply one piece of evidence to back up any one of your claims.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Imagination 10/10

Scientific evidence 0/10

Since True_Blue mentioned his "Icelandic Hypothesis" I think this applies:
Engi er alheimskur, ef þegja má.

And, course, this:

Það er löng leið frá Íslandi til Himnaríkis.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This is another awkward problem Creationist need to work out.

No, see, cos the NASA scientists put all the stars and planetary orbits in a big computer see, and the only way it all works out to be in the current locations is if the Sun stopped in the sky for a day 4000 years ago![/snopes]

 

[TheGnome]

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.

Again, no evidence to back any of this up. I've already gotten through the fact that complexity cannot be used either way to show the existence or nonexistence of a deity. You simply like to make things up because it sounds good to you.

You're giving God attributes you don't know are real, not to mention you don't have any evidence of a god you're giving attributes to. This goes back to the philosophical nightmare that is God. God likes matter? Why would God ever need to like matter? Why does God even have the ability to like or dislike? Doesn't perfection negate the idea of desires, because an individual with desires means an individual not perfect until those desires are met? None of it makes any sense. It is no wonder why you disagree with science: if you think we treat science like how you treat religion, then of course you'd think that science was nothing but a bunch of guesswork.

 

[Naraoia]

Thank you for making that point, Naraoia.

You're welcome.

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."

What in the world does this have to do with scientists and average Joes?

 

[thaumaturgy]

for purposes of this discussion I am defining very broadly.

You are not allowed to redefine words simply to suit your own needs in a scientific discussion.

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.

OK, I'll bite. Do you think you can use your patented "Pure Random Method" to estimate where and what energy the electrons will be in relationship to the nucleus? Because, as usual, someone has done that and found your "pure 50/50 random test" to be a failure when it comes to chemistry.

Are you familiar with the Scrhoedinger equation? When it is squared it becomes a probability function for the location of the electron. Praytell, how does your "pure random prediction" model come up with the following atomic orbitals?

You see, True_blue, the fact that you are just throwing around words doesn't impress me. You don't have an understanding of the science and you don't appear to have an understanding that there is any science behind this stuff.

Atoms resist successive increases in the number of electrons surrounding the nucleus,

Stop right there: which is more stable; an atom with a valence shell of 3p4 or 3p6?

(In case you are wholly unfamiliar with the notation what this means is a p-orbital of the 3rd period that has 4 electrons or a p-orbital of the 3rd period that has 6 electrons).

Please, feel free to use your above statement to make a prediction. Or just roll the dice with your "pure probability model".

Again, your "words" are not impressive. Your ability to define a testable truth would be.

Don't confuse your rhetoric skills from your law school days with scientific skills.

One without the other in this debate really may be worse than having neither.

 

[True_Blue]

This is magical mysticism; totally the product of your imagination.

Please supply one piece of evidence to back up any one of your claims.

I'll write on flood geology later in another thread.

 

[mpok1519]

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.

The thing is, I am a Christian; maybe I've given the wrong impression.

Also, I ran the numbers, and the near impossibility of alien-life means one thing; possibility that it still exists. The numbers don't come up negative! lol if they did, then it'd be impossible. Also, your beginning variable of 1/10^7500 is just a guess without basis for its the best guess anyone can come up with, althoughts its just a blind guess; sometimes the best estimate is no-where near the fact of the matter.

Ill use a better model. Assume theres only one planet in every galaxy(and remember, a galaxy has millions of solar systems in them) that can support life.

Now multiply that by infinity, because thats how many galaxies there could be, literally; we don't know. Yet, if there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 galaxies out there(which is a pretty ungenerous guess; theres probably more), I'm pretty sure theres ONE that can support life; on a moneran level, even.

This is not a blind guess, however, and my model uses more rational figures, for you think the center of the universe is closer to the earth, when I think the universe is so big, there is no definable 'center'.

 

[True_Blue]

You are not allowed to redefine words simply to suit your own needs in a scientific discussion.

OK, I'll bite. Do you think you can use your patented "Pure Random Method" to estimate where and what energy the electrons will be in relationship to the nucleus? Because, as usual, someone has done that and found your "pure 50/50 random test" to be a failure when it comes to chemistry.

Are you familiar with the Scrhoedinger equation? When it is squared it becomes a probability function for the location of the electron. Praytell, how does your "pure random prediction" model come up with the following atomic orbitals?

You see, True_blue, the fact that you are just throwing around words doesn't impress me. You don't have an understanding of the science and you don't appear to have an understanding that there is any science behind this stuff.

Stop right there: which is more stable; an atom with a valence shell of 3p4 or 3p6?

(In case you are wholly unfamiliar with the notation what this means is a p-orbital of the 3rd period that has 4 electrons or a p-orbital of the 3rd period that has 6 electrons).

Thaumaturgy, while it's been a decade since my last chemistry class, I'm pretty sure that current equations are not adequate to predict the precise location of an electron. I'm also pretty sure that the configuration of most stable valence shell depends on the nucleus. A uranium atom with no electrons is highly unstable, as with one with too many, and that noble gases like nice full valence shells. I could hardly care less whether 3p4 or 3p6 is more stable--it seems to depend on the nucleus, but even if my answer is "wrong," my point in introducing this topic is to help convince you that there is an underlying order and mechanical process to chemistry, and that deviating from that basic order creates inherent instability. The fact that we can use mathematics to create the Periodic Table and describe electron orbitals is evidence of this basic universal complexity. For example, if you take a bucket of sand and dump it out slowly on a flat surface, the angle of the sand pile is always the same. The constancy of the angle is the underlying order of the system of which the sand comprises. But if you come up to a beach and see a sand castle, that sand castle is orderly and the product of intelligent design, and as such, it is more unstable that the pile of sand. If a wave hits it, the castle will be reduced to a mound of sand. Through simple common sense, one can readily distinguish between objects that are the product of intelligent design and objects that are the product of the natural laws at work. One can also recognize that the natural laws themselves are the product of intelligent design.

 

[True_Blue]

The thing is, I am a Christian; maybe I've given the wrong impression.

Also, I ran the numbers, and the near impossibility of alien-life means one thing; possibility that it still exists. The numbers don't come up negative! lol if they did, then it'd be impossible. Also, your beginning variable of 1/10^7500 is just a guess without basis for its the best guess anyone can come up with, althoughts its just a blind guess; sometimes the best estimate is no-where near the fact of the matter.

Ill use a better model. Assume theres only one planet in every galaxy(and remember, a galaxy has millions of solar systems in them) that can support life.

Now multiply that by infinity, because thats how many galaxies there could be, literally; we don't know. Yet, if there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 galaxies out there(which is a pretty ungenerous guess; theres probably more), I'm pretty sure theres ONE that can support life; on a moneran level, even.

This is not a blind guess, however, and my model uses more rational figures, for you think the center of the universe is closer to the earth, when I think the universe is so big, there is no definable 'center'.

As an FYI, there is no such thing as a negative probability. Probabilities by definition range between 0 and 1, with 0 being completely impossible and 1 being certain. You should not expect to generate a negative number.

The number I came up with 1/10^7500, as a complete WAG, but it's premised on assumptions. What's important are the assumptions, not the number.

If you're "pretty sure" that one can support life based on the reality of Earth, you've made an assumption based on faith. I haven't made the point on this thread that it's just as improbable that a planet like Earth could support life as it is for a cell to evolve. But why don't we just assume that all 1 octillion planets actually can support life? That's a very generous assumption in favor of evolution, and I went even further in Post #1 and assumpted a trillion trillion universes densely pacted with particles capable of coalescing to form life. In other words, I expanded Earth to encompass the entire universe, and multiplied by a trillion trillion universes. That's a far more generous assumption than your assumption above.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, while it's been a decade since my last chemistry class, I'm pretty sure that current equations are not adequate to predict the precise location of an electron.

I didn't know we were talking about precise location. I was bringing this up to talk about "probability densities". I'll assume that you don't understand this topic.

I'm also pretty sure that the configuration of most stable valence shell depends on the nucleus.

Why do you insist on trying to make comments on this subject when you clearly don't understand what is being said to you? I find it mysterious.

Do you know what I meant when I mentioned a valence shell? I recommend you read up on it. The fact that I mentioned two valence shell configurations seems to limit it to, oh, about two elements, neither of which is even marginally close to uranium. Look it up on a periodic table. Do that before you try to sound "smart" on this topic.

A uranium atom with no electrons is highly unstable, as with one with too many, and that noble gases like nice full valence shells. I could hardly care less whether 3p4 or 3p6 is more stable

It's funny because the element with a valence shell of 3p6 is ARGON. A noble gas. Too bad you didn't catch that.

Oh well maybe it was because I didn't type out the 1s2, 2s2, 3p6 part. Was that it?

--it seems to depend on the nucleus, but even if my answer is "wrong,"

Uh, yeah, maybe you should learn some chemistry before talking about it.

 

[Vene]

Let's see if I have kept track of this thread accurately:

True_Blue claims abiogenesis is so improbable that we might as well say it's impossible.
Various people say that he's failing to account for any chemistry.
True_Blue makes erroneous statements about chemistry
True_Blue gets called out and a challenge is presented for him to test his model.
True_Blue fails the test by not even applying his model.
True_Blue misunderstands what the second law of thermodynamics states.
He is corrected, again.
Thaumaturgy presents a test about orbitals.
True_Blue fails.


Why in the world would I pay attention to anything True_Blue says about the probabilities of chemical reactions after all of this?

 

[True_Blue]

I didn't know we were talking about precise location. I was bringing this up to talk about "probability densities". I'll assume that you don't understand this topic.

Why do you insist on trying to make comments on this subject when you clearly don't understand what is being said to you? I find it mysterious.

Do you know what I meant when I mentioned a valence shell? I recommend you read up on it. The fact that I mentioned two valence shell configurations seems to limit it to, oh, about two elements, neither of which is even marginally close to uranium. Look it up on a periodic table. Do that before you try to sound "smart" on this topic.

It's funny because the element with a valence shell of 3p6 is ARGON. A noble gas. Too bad you didn't catch that.

Oh well maybe it was because I didn't type out the 1s2, 2s2, 3p6 part. Was that it?

Uh, yeah, maybe you should learn some chemistry before talking about it.

Thaumatury, I'm not interested in whether you know more chemistry than I do. I don't think the readers on this thread care either. I am interested in whether you can show by chemistry and by math that abiogenesis is not impossible.

True_Blue's Thesis (one of many possible wordings): Abiogenesis impossible under any reasonable assumptions, with or without chemistry.

You can disprove that thesis by showing that abiogenesis is possible with chemistry.

 

[True_Blue]

Let's see if I have kept track of this thread accurately:

True_Blue claims abiogenesis is so improbable that we might as well say it's impossible.
Various people say that he's failing to account for any chemistry.
True_Blue makes erroneous statements about chemistry
True_Blue gets called out and a challenge is presented for him to test his model.
True_Blue fails the test by not even applying his model.
True_Blue misunderstands what the second law of thermodynamics states.
He is corrected, again.
Thaumaturgy presents a test about orbitals.
True_Blue fails.

Why in the world would I pay attention to anything True_Blue says about the probabilities of chemical reactions after all of this?

My thesis is broader than chemistry. It extends to any conceivable life form that is comprised of parts, whatever their composition. If you think chemistry is a driver for abiogenesis, then show your work.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

My thesis is broader than chemistry. It extends to any conceivable life form that is comprised of parts, whatever their composition. If you think chemistry is a driver for abiogenesis, then show your work.

Okay then, can you show us why we should accept your ideas even though they seem to contradict the witness left behind by God in His own creation?

 

[Vene]

My thesis is broader than chemistry. It extends to any conceivable life form that is comprised of parts, whatever their composition. If you think chemistry is a driver for abiogenesis, then show your work.

Mostly because chemistry is the driving force behind life. Be it nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, or even water all living things are composed of CHEMICALS. And those chemicals react NON-RANDOMLY in processes like transcription, the Calvin cycle, and coagulation. That is why I look to chemistry. If you can empirically demonstrate that there is something else driving life, then show it to me.

 

[True_Blue]

Mostly because chemistry is the driving force behind life. Be it nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, or even water all living things are composed of CHEMICALS. And those chemicals react NON-RANDOMLY in processes like transcription, the Calvin cycle, and coagulation. That is why I look to chemistry. If you can empirically demonstrate that there is something else driving life, then show it to me.

Ok, I will try to rephrase a little differently. Chemicals are unquestionably the driving force of organic life. And chemistry is unquestionably non-random. All reactions in our body are chemical, and the math of chemistry is the substrate upon which we live. The exchange and release of electrons between molecules drives our bodies. The movement of electrons through circuits/transistors in computers is the driving force of computers. The electrons power the engines within our computers and comprises the basis of the programming instructions. The same is true for lightning bolts--electrons, ions, etc form the basis of the discharge of electricity in the atmosphere. Chemistry and the related fields form the basis of all three of these examples. In all three examples, the underlying chemical laws are non-random--that is why our computers [usually] work the way they should, and why we can forecast lightning storms with ok accuracy.

Basically, chemistry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for life, just as chemistry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for computers. Computers are a product of an exogenous intelligence, though a comparatively weak one compared to the vast intelligence that forms the basis of living things. Human beings with all their intellect and creativity, cannot create a physical machine that can gather its own food from its environment, think for itself, reprodruce itself, etc. There isn't anything about life that I can see that requires it be the product of chance-based chemical recreations. By analogy to computers and other man-made objects, it makes sense that life is the product of a supreme intelligence with far greater power than ourselves.

 

[True_Blue]

Okay then, can you show us why we should accept your ideas even though they seem to contradict the witness left behind by God in His own creation?

Your statement a priori assumes that God's creation requires or bears witness to a gradualist, evolutionary origin. I do not believe the scientific evidence, the Bible, or my own intuition substantiates that assumption.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Okay, let's see then...

if islam had an infinite hell and an infinite heaven, would you be a Muslim?

pascal's wager will only lead to jesus if Christianity has the greatest reward and the worst punishment.

Oh, and what if the correct religion is one that hasn't been discovered yet?

And about how gambling in Las Vegas doesn't involve logic....

if I am playing Blackjack and I get 20, it's pretty logical that you're going to stand, not hit. or am I missing something there as well?

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.

You want to show me how natural selection and/or any other non-random method of passing on traits does NOT play a major role in evolution? How are they poor engines? I must have missed those posts....