Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Mr Laurier]

Using the Bible to decide science is like using Bill Gates' diary to run a computer repair shop.

Exactly. and yet that is what creationism is

 

[Mr Laurier]

Funny how the Bible was the first document in history that told us to use running water when dealing with injuries rather than the classic bowl of water that spread germs. Thats a pretty scientific practice for hygiene.

Given that the bible never did any such thing....

 

[Hans Blaster]

THIS:

If you can't measure something then you can't make claims about the probabilities and possibilities of it increasing or decreasing.

Also this:

If you can't measure something then you can't make claims about the probabilities and possibilities of it increasing or decreasing.

AND this:

If you can't measure something then you can't make claims about the probabilities and possibilities of it increasing or decreasing.

and one more time:

If you can't measure something then you can't make claims about the probabilities and possibilities of it increasing or decreasing.

If you want to determine the probability of any 100-nucleotide sequence forming randomly by sticking nucleotides together, then the answer is 4^100, but if sequence in question wasn't assembled in its present form by random assembly the THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION IS MEANINGLESS.

If you don't know how to compute or measure something like the assembly of various self-replicating components into a proto-cell then THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION IS MEANINGLESS.

If you don't know the mechanism for setting the physical constants and you then try to compute the likelihood that the physical constants have their measured values then THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION IS MEANINGLESS.

 

[dlamberth]

Exactly. and yet that is what creationism is

That's why AV would rather that Creationism be taught as history and not as science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. and yet that is what creationism is.

Show me science in the version of creationism that I subscribe to.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's why AV would rather that Creationism be taught as history and not as science.

Correct.

There is not a lick of science in the Creation Events.

None whatsoever.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m not trying to do anything other than cite what evolutionists such as Hubert Yockey, and Fred Hoyle, Dean Kenyon, who was a famously huge proponent of chemical evolution, and many others have computed as to the odds.

I don't know who Yockey and Kenyon are/were, but Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not an evolutionist. (He was however a pioneer in the study of galactic chemical evolution, but that isn't what you're talking about here.)

 

[SelfSim]

If you want to determine the probability of any 100-nucleotide sequence forming randomly by sticking nucleotides together, then the answer is 4^100, but if sequence in question wasn't assembled in its present form by random assembly the THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION IS MEANINGLESS.

If you don't know how to compute or measure something like the assembly of various self-replicating components into a proto-cell then THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION IS MEANINGLESS.

If you don't know the mechanism for setting the physical constants and you then try to compute the likelihood that the physical constants have their measured values then THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION IS MEANINGLESS.

Same goes for trying to calculate the probability of life elsewhere in the universe .. however, when the number of distributions gets really big, the central limit theorem kicks in. Its been a while .. but I think I need a refresher in all that .. good topic for the science forum maybe(?)

 

[chad kincham]

I see you did but you obviously did not understand it.
Emergence of life in an inflationary universe
or perhaps because the lure of anti-science fallacies is greater for you.
8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments

Follow the money.

That’s a smokescreen, to call the truth anti science.

The evidence for design, as Paul Davies admits, has become overwhelming.

The Big Bang was a supernatural event, the universe is designed for life, and DNA is the signature of God that proves to unbiased minds, that God exists and is the creator.

The real deniers of science are those who are still trying to prove that nothing became everything.

 

[Speedwell]

That’s a smokescreen, to call the truth anti science.

The evidence for design, as Paul Davies admits, has become overwhelming.

The Big Bang was a supernatural event, the universe is designed for life, and DNA is the signature of God that proves to unbiased minds, that God exists and is the creator.

Without doubt it is Ahura Mazda. Great. We can start teaching it in the public schools.

The real deniers of science are those who are still trying to prove that nothing became everything.

Do you know any? They don't seem to come to this forum.

 

[Shemjaza]

Nice attempt at deflection from the fact that even many evolutionists today admit DNA is a biological programming language code that all cells have as their operating system, containing specified and complex information, and that language and information only come from an intelligent mind.

It's a silly analogy.

Feel free to justify it, but computer programming doesn't work like chemistry.

In both cases a seemingly simple contents can lead to very sophisticated outcomes, but stretching analogies doesn't work as a form of argument.

Given your total unwillingness to answer the questions about "containing specified and complex information" I think you might need to actually acknowledge that you don't have an answer.

 

[chad kincham]

1 to the 97 billionth power is 1, so you may be nearer to the mark than you thought. I'm not going to ask where you got this number from; I suspect that it was a scientist who was teasing you and making fun of your ignorance of mathematics.

That meant odds of 1 x 10 to the 97 millionth power. and was a typo I didn’t catch.

Here’s some more odds:

Through his research on proteins, Axe has discovered that the odds of producing functioning proteins by chance were beyond his wildest imagination.

… I was able to put a number on the actual rarity—a startling number. With only one good protein sequence for every 1074 bad ones, I had found functional proteins to be…rarer than Denton’s criterion! Unless this number was overturned somehow, a decisive blow had been dealt to the idea that proteins arose from accidental causes.[8]

To put that 1x1074 probability in perspective, it is estimated that the “…number of stars may very well be around 1.2×1023 – or just over 100 sextillion.”[9] Through a process of randomly mutating sequences of the amino acids in proteins, Axe discovered that chance alone could not explain the origins of these molecules. Therefore, the identification of specified complexity in DNA forces researchers to look for answers in places other than random recombination.

 

[VirOptimus]

That meant odds of 1 x 10 to the 97 millionth power. and was a typo I didn’t catch.

The odds of life appearing in earth is 1:1.

Try to learn the basics of probability.

 

[chad kincham]

Yet more calculations on odds of abiogenesis:

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

 

[chad kincham]

The odds of life appearing in earth is 1:1.

Try to learn the basics of probability.

Odds of abiogenesis:

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yet more calculations on odds of abiogenesis:

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

nice cut and paste.

Got any own arguments?

 

[VirOptimus]

Odds of abiogenesis:

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

Thats not how probability works.

Life has appeared on earth, ergo the odds are 1:1.

 

[chad kincham]

Do you really want to understand? All Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired and authoritative word of God and they trust it implicitly.

The Bible is diametrically opposed to evolution.

The lineage of Adam is a pile of dirt, and not that of millions of years of evolution and common descent from countless progenitors that eventually evolved into a human.

The lineage of Eve is being cloned from Adams rib cells.

And the Bible is clear that death didn’t exist until creation was cursed after the fall of Adam, which precludes the lives and deaths of every animal that supposedly was involved in gradually evolving into Adam.

 

[VirOptimus]

The Bible is diametrically opposed to evolution.

The lineage of Adam is a pile of dirt, and not that of millions of years of evolution and common descent from countless progenitors that eventually evolved into a human.

The lineage of Eve is being cloned from Adams rib cells.

And the Bible is clear that death didn’t exist until creation was cursed after the fall of Adam, which precludes the lives and deaths of every animal that supposedly was involved in gradually evolving into Adam.

You have a very modern and narrow understanding of ”truth”.

 

[chad kincham]

Thats not how probability works.

Life has appeared on earth, ergo the odds are 1:1.

The odds that life appeared on earth are 1:1.

The odds that life appeared because of random bonding of chemicals in a prebiotic soup: beyond impossible.

And THAT’S how probability works.