No slave race: no evolution

[True_Blue]

Problem no. 2. You did not resolve all uncertainty in favor of abiogenesis. You ran your model based on a strawman that could never work. What you failed to take into account is that chemistry is not all based on random interactions! Atoms and molecules interact in specific ways governed by their chemistry and entropy consideractions that you ignored. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Our computers are not random--the physical laws governing computers are orderly. Now, let's assume in favor of abiogenesis that the computer you are using is part of the physical laws, that the existence of functioning, fully powered computers with a CPU, monitory, keyboard, etc. is a fundamental law of the universe. That is, the universe must have a functioning computer. (This is not true, of course, but work with me.). Now, you've got a functioning computer, but you don't have functioning software. To have functioning software, you need a series of ones and zeros ordered in such a way as to do something useful and help operate the computer as an operating system. In my abiogenesis calculations, I assumed that the computer was already there, and by doing so, I gave evolutionists the benefit of all the benevolent chemistry their hearts could wish for. I also did it as a matter of convenience because I'm not a chemist. What I don't give evolutionists is the operating system residing on the computer. I'm making you guys tell me how the heck random ones and zeros typed into the computer are supposed to eventually result in the creation of functioning software. Can't happen. Ever. And none of you nor any other evolutionist to my knowledge has lifted a finger to explain it. So that's why, when people like Vene complain about the lack of chemistry in my model, I respond with an N/A. I've already assumed away the chemistry in the way most favorable to the evolutionist. The result is still that abiogenesis is impossible.

 

[thaumaturgy]

By "water," I meant liquid water, not ice or vapor. The Phoenix lander found ice.

You still haven't proven no liquid water was ever on Mars. Your debate is suspiciously like saying you found ice cubes in your freezer so you are assuming there's never been any liquid water in your kitchen.

Thaumaturgy, notwithstanding the article you linked to, which I have read before, I believe the moon dust argument is very compelling.

I don't care what you believe. This was brought up as your example of a Creationist Prediction that was better than the science. Your personal feelings mean nothing here. In point of fact, even AIG doesn't think Creationists should use this debate tactic!

In no way does 1-3 inch lunar dust prove evolution.

You made it through law school?

Here's the story thus far:

1. You indicated Creationists have made predictions
2. I asked for a scientific prediction creationists have made
3. You bring up the moon dust point.
4. You are shown how even a creationist organization suggests Creationists not use this gambit.

I'm not sure where you left the debate, but welcome back!

While 1-inch moon dust does not “prove” Creationism, it removes a potential source of evidence for evolutionists, and it is evidence of how Creationist extrapolations become proven out in the real world.

You didn't read my post did you? Did it have too many words?

I recently went to a university looking for a scientist with a particular, rare, skill set, which could be very valuable if properly utilized. Half of the faculty in this particular department have devoted their lives to evolution, and their CVs reflected this. The scientists with evolutionist CVs didn’t have the background and the experience in the right areas needed for the creation of wealth.

(emphasis added).

I think we all see which master you serve now.

The scientist I choose happens to believe in evolution, but this person devoted his or her life to a field with actual value

You're a real blessing to your faith.

, and as a result, this person may be a huge blessing to others. How on earth can the study of Neanderthals lead to the creation of useful technology?

You will never understand that point. That is sad.

Remember, True-Blue, not all of us serve Mammon with all our hearts and minds.

Another result is that most lawyers will agree that law school is mostly a waste of time.

Well, I can't speak to how law school is or isn't a waste of time having never been to law school. But I've seen plenty of sub-intellects on this forum who claimed to have academic experience only to then decree it was a waste of their time. They are usually people who claim some experience but are demonstrably pretty weak in that area.

I guess "justification" is one of the harder habits for people to break.

But I'll take you at your word that "most lawyers" think law school is a "waste of time". It certainly didn't seem to offer you much in the way of strong logic or debate skills.

(I will say that my brief foray into intellectual property law over the past couple of years has been quite stimulating and exciting precisely because of the work it takes to think very robustly from a legalistic mindset and the interesting relationship between legal reasoning and statistical hypothesis testing formalisms, but something tells me all that would be a "waste of time" for you, it doesn't immediately generate cash flows to the bottom line. And we all know what a harsh task master your beloved mammon can be.)

 

[Nathan45]

Our computers are not random--the physical laws governing computers are orderly. Now, let's assume in favor of abiogenesis that the computer you are using is part of the physical laws, that the existence of functioning, fully powered computers with a CPU, monitory, keyboard, etc. is a fundamental law of the universe. That is, the universe must have a functioning computer. (This is not true, of course, but work with me.). Now, you've got a functioning computer, but you don't have functioning software. To have functioning software, you need a series of ones and zeros ordered in such a way as to do something useful and help operate the computer as an operating system. In my abiogenesis calculations, I assumed that the computer was already there, and by doing so, I gave evolutionists the benefit of all the benevolent chemistry their hearts could wish for. I also did it as a matter of convenience because I'm not a chemist. What I don't give evolutionists is the operating system residing on the computer. I'm making you guys tell me how the heck random ones and zeros typed into the computer are supposed to eventually result in the creation of functioning software. Can't happen. Ever. And none of you nor any other evolutionist to my knowledge has lifted a finger to explain it. So that's why, when people like Vene complain about the lack of chemistry in my model, I respond with an N/A. I've already assumed away the chemistry in the way most favorable to the evolutionist. The result is still that abiogenesis is impossible.

why is it that I have this weird image in my head of true_blue disproving evolution by frantically pressing the 1 and 0 keys on the keyboard of a computer without an operating system.

 

[True_Blue]

..

IP law is very useful, though one can study for and pass the patent bar without law school.

You can't help the poor without money. Money is created by hard work and good moral values. A person can gather wealth to themselves without morals, but it doesn't arise from nothing without a set of very special parameters. Evolution does not create wealth because evolution is not true.

 

[Nathan45]

Evolution does not create wealth because evolution is not true.

and don't forget there is no trade route between Spain and India because the earth is flat, Mr. Columbus.

Don't even try sailing over that other way.

 

[Nathan45]

anyways, I strongly disagree that studying neanderthal DNA could not lead to "wealth".

Any study of DNA helps us understand DNA, which helps us engineer our own DNA... which will most likely be a huge industry in 50 years or so.

 

[True_Blue]

why is it that I have this weird image in my head of true_blue disproving evolution by frantically pressing the 1 and 0 keys on the keyboard of a computer without an operating system.

Nathan45, your bio says you're a programmer. Do you use a random number generator to write a program? If every time you hit 0 and 1 on a keyboard containing only 1s and 0s (again stripping out chemistry from the calculus by eliminating all other keys that would mess things up), and every time you hit 0 or 1, you had a 99% chance of creating a useful computer program with a minimum of 50,000 1s and 0s, what is the probability of creating the computer program?

(I'm sorry, Vene, drops of grease do not a life form make.)

 

[Nathan45]

Nathan45, your bio says you're a programmer. Do you use a random number generator to write a program?

No, and nobody programs in numbers, we use higher level languages not machine code. let the computer deal with the machine code. LOL. And we certainly don't program in random zeros and 1s.

If every time you hit 0 and 1 on a keyboard containing only 1s and 0s (again stripping out chemistry from the calculus by eliminating all other keys that would mess things up), and every time you hit 0 or 1, you had a 99% chance of creating a useful computer program with a minimum of 50,000 1s and 0s, what is the probability of creating the computer program?

let me see if i can parse this nonsense.

remember, we assume this is true:

"every time you hit 0 or 1, you had a 99% chance of creating a useful computer program with a minimum of 50,000 1s and 0s"

ok, ASSUMING THAT.

"what is the probability of creating the computer program? "

Should be 99% per keyboard hit, because everytime you hit the 1 or 0 key it creates a useful program 50,000 bits long. which means that if you bang your head on your keyboard for a few seconds you should create several useful programs.

Of course, that's a pretty wild assumption you're making here.

Realistically though, you're not going to get anywhere by banging on the keyboard of a computer without an operating system.

Computers expect very specific input... a typical desktop computer without an operating system expects one thing: It expects you to insert a CD with an operating system on it. If you do anything else, nothing is going to happen.

 

[Nathan45]

Sorry if i come off as rude and sarcastic, anyway, i haven't posted in this section in a while for a reason.

The more i post here the more i want to start posting like Consol.

 

[True_Blue]

No, and nobody programs in numbers, we use higher level languages not machine code. let the computer deal with the machine code. LOL. And we certainly don't program in random zeros and 1s.

let me see if i can parse this nonsense.

remember, we assume this is true:

"every time you hit 0 or 1, you had a 99% chance of creating a useful computer program with a minimum of 50,000 1s and 0s"

ok, ASSUMING THAT.

"what is the probability of creating the computer program? "

Should be 99% per keyboard hit, because everytime you hit the 1 or 0 key it creates a useful program 50,000 bits long. which means that if you bang your head on your keyboard for a few seconds you should create several useful programs.

Of course, that's a pretty wild assumption you're making here.

Realistically though, you're not going to get anywhere by banging on the keyboard of a computer without an operating system.

Computers expect very specific input... a typical desktop computer without an operating system expects one thing: It expects you to insert a CD with an operating system on it. If you do anything else, nothing is going to happen.

Nathan, I'm familiar with the difference between machine code and programming languages. Machines only understand machine code. How many bits of data do the simpler operating systems have? The simplest life forms have a lot more bits than 50,000.

I'll answer my own question: the probability of a random number generator creating a useful operating system under the assumptions I provided is 1/(5.75^-219). To do you see just how daunting the problem is for evolutionists?

 

[True_Blue]

Sorry if i come off as rude and sarcastic, anyway, i haven't posted in this section in a while for a reason.

The more i post here the more i want to start posting like Consol.

No problem, Nathan, I appreciate your candor. This is a subject that is always intensely emotional for everyone, especially myself. The subject matter of creation/evolution requires a lot of grace on both sides.

 

[True_Blue]

and don't forget there is no trade route between Spain and India because the earth is flat, Mr. Columbus.

Don't even try sailing over that other way.

Thaumaturgy (or maybe Chalnoth), this is a good example of government-funded research paying big rewards, as an effective counterexample to points I tried to make earlier.

 

[Split Rock]

Our computers are not random--the physical laws governing computers are orderly. Now, let's assume in favor of abiogenesis that the computer you are using is part of the physical laws, that the existence of functioning, fully powered computers with a CPU, monitory, keyboard, etc. is a fundamental law of the universe. That is, the universe must have a functioning computer. (This is not true, of course, but work with me.). Now, you've got a functioning computer, but you don't have functioning software. To have functioning software, you need a series of ones and zeros ordered in such a way as to do something useful and help operate the computer as an operating system. In my abiogenesis calculations, I assumed that the computer was already there, and by doing so, I gave evolutionists the benefit of all the benevolent chemistry their hearts could wish for. I also did it as a matter of convenience because I'm not a chemist. What I don't give evolutionists is the operating system residing on the computer.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, and I doubt you do either.

I'm making you guys tell me how the heck random ones and zeros typed into the computer are supposed to eventually result in the creation of functioning software. Can't happen. Ever.

What we have been trying to tell you is that Chemistry Is Not Random. Therefore your question as to how random ones and zeroes result in functioning software is Irrelevant. I am having a very hard time at this point believing you do not understand this.

So that's why, when people like Vene complain about the lack of chemistry in my model, I respond with an N/A.

Sure, and why don't you do your next series of cost estimates on miltary aircraft by ignoring the aircraft.

I've already assumed away the chemistry in the way most favorable to the evolutionist. The result is still that abiogenesis is impossible.

You created a strawman and knocked him down. Without chemistry there can be no abiogenesis. A polymer does not form via the random associations between individual atoms all coming together at the same time in the proper alignment. No one has ever suggested this is how abiogenesis works. Hence... your model is a useless strawman, rather than some boon to abiogenesis calculations.

 

[Split Rock]

IP law is very useful, though one can study for and pass the patent bar without law school.

You can't help the poor without money. Money is created by hard work and good moral values. A person can gather wealth to themselves without morals, but it doesn't arise from nothing without a set of very special parameters. Evolution does not create wealth because evolution is not true.

You could have fooled Pete Harcoff and his thread here:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6430930&highlight=pete+harcoff

 

[Nathan45]

Machines only understand machine code.

One thing that should be mentioned, is that machine code differs for every machine. it's often referred to as "Native Code", because different PC's normally don't use the same variation of machine code.

The PC is specifically engineered to understand it's own native machine code, and no other code. And even without an "operating system" it has built in "firmware" to interface with the higher level programs.

You need to stop thinking of a computer as some sort of mysterious universe in a box and start thinking of it as a specifically engineered sequence of circuits, which receive specific input corresponding to a list of actions ( I.E.: if this combination of input, then: read memory in this memory location, write memory in this location. ) and act on that input.

But here you are taking arbitrary numbers like 99% and 50,000, etc. I am aware that that 99%^50,000 is going to be a number closer to zero than anything else, and i was making fun of the way you phrased the question. But it's still a bunch of arbitrary numbers that have nothing to do with abiogenesis.

If i wanted to create a computer model of abiogenesis, here's what i'd do: Through chemical modeling, try to discover the simplest possible molecule capable of any kind of spontaneous self-reproduction ( if the reproduction occurs after a chain of complex chemical reactions, producing many byproducts, this still qualifies ). Then try to model how and under what circumstances this molecule could be created from simpler molecules.

But You don't need a computer model to tell you that banging 1s and 0s into a computer is extremely unliekly to yeild a working program. In fact you can calculate the odds, as you just did, with simple math. This has nothing to do with chemistry.

...

True_Blue, the problem with your posts is that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about yet you keep talking and refuse to learn anything. You are so completely ignorant of the subject matter, yet you keep talking. I hope you won't take that as a personal attack, but that's what's so frustrating about arguing with you.

I hope you won't take it personally but at this point i prefer to make jokes about you rubbing your chin (a joke that may have gone over your head) while positing that neanderthal fossils are actually humans.

 

[Nathan45]

anyway, you should note that modern computers are extremely complicated, so you'd need an extremely complicated input to build a new operating system on a computer without any operating system. This really has nothing to do with chemistry and everything to do with the complexity of the internal hardware of the computer, which could theoretically be built to accept simple inputs.

wheras abiogenesis has nothing to do with computer languages and everything to do with self-replicating molecules.

You need to do is find the simplest self-replicating molecule, find a way for it to appear spontaneously from other molecules, and that's abiogenesis. You can't model abiogenesis without chemistry, it's stupid to even try.

 

[Nathan45]

You need to do is find the simplest self-replicating molecule, find a way for it to appear spontaneously from other molecules, and that's abiogenesis. You can't model abiogenesis without chemistry, it's stupid to even try.

not that i really know what i'm talking about either, all the people talking about polymers and such clearly know more than i do.

I mean, i don't claim to be a chemist, either.

But can you see the difference between programming a computer with no operating system on one hand and a bunch of molecules on the other?

taking out all of the non- 0's and 1's from your computer's keyboard does not make for a model favorable towards the evolutionists.
It's still a complete non-sequitur to compare your common desktop computer's input requirements with the spontaneous creation of life 4 billion years ago.

 

[Nathan45]

and my posts don't make sense until i've edited them at least 3 times, i must be tired, lol.

 

[thaumaturgy]

IP law is very useful, though one can study for and pass the patent bar without law school.

I am, indeed, aware of that.

You can't help the poor without money.

Are you...justifying your love of money now? I didn't catch that part. Oh well, then yes you can. So I suppose that justifies your being a "moneychanger in the temple of science", then does it? Remember, can't help the poor without money.

Sorry, but your view of science as an expedient for making money and how you assess the value of science you clearly don't understand is of no consequence to me or the many other scientists on this board.

Face it, True_Blue, you don't understand science and you don't understand what motivates scientists. They are a mystery to you because they do things that don't result in an immediate "ka-ching"!

They don't worship money as you do. Now what you do with all your money is of no interest to me. I'm glad to hear you indicate you help the poor with that money. Kudos.

Would you be for mandatory relinquishment of all intellectual property rights for all drugs and environmentally significant research findings from companies? It would go to the greater good of all people. You can't help the poor if you maintain a "negative right" to keep others from practicing your "art".

Money is created by hard work and good moral values.

You don't watch the news much do you? Enron generated a lot of money for Ken Lay et al. I would hardly call those repellent sub-humans "good moral" people, despite Kenny Boy's blathering about his religious roots as he was about to be convicted in court.

I currently see an economy driven into the ground by greed and one of the sticking points is around "throttles" being put on excessive CEO pay. Are CEO's the most moral and hard working people on earth? Does a person get paid in proportion to their morality?

A person can gather wealth to themselves without morals, but it doesn't arise from nothing without a set of very special parameters. Evolution does not create wealth because evolution is not true.

-Yawn-

So you telling me biotechnology and pharmaceuticals don't make money? If evolution underlies biology so thoroughly that most biologists believe in evolution, well, I guess you and I see very different "balance sheets" published.

Pharmaceutical companies make huge amounts of money. It's pretty biological in scope to deal with pharma.

(Maybe next time you try to make a point like this you should do som fact checking.)

 

[True_Blue]

not that i really know what i'm talking about either, all the people talking about polymers and such clearly know more than i do.

I mean, i don't claim to be a chemist, either.

But can you see the difference between programming a computer with no operating system on one hand and a bunch of molecules on the other?

taking out all of the non- 0's and 1's from your computer's keyboard does not make for a model favorable towards the evolutionists.
It's still a complete non-sequitur to compare your common desktop computer's input requirements with the spontaneous creation of life 4 billion years ago.

Model a cell as a computer, and model the DNA in the cell as an operating system in a computer. Model "chemistry" as the process by which 1s and Os are entered into a keyboard, and the process by which the computer runs the operating system.

When I estimated the cost of aircraft, I didn't go out and build an aircraft and add up the expenses. I made a bunch of assumptions and fed the assumptions into a mathematical model and calculated the result. The same thing must be done to determine the probability of abiogenesis. For reasons that are obvious, evolutionists are opposed to the very idea of running the numbers. They have to be opposed, otherwise they would not be evolutionists. That's why I'm not the least bit surprised that no one wants to give me quantified assumptions about chemistry as applied to abiogenesis.