Mathematicians PROVE evolution IMPOSSIBLE.

[JacksBratt]

I would say this is a common christian stance but I would be very wary of founding my belief system on anything but God Himself and the real world around us. Reality is the starting point. Not the bible. The bible is a book.

So, tell me, what other source do you have, that tells you anything about God? What is your system that connects you to God? How would you even know about God if it were not for the Bible?

The Bible is and always was the "starting point". For without it we would have nothing to base our belief on.

Science and religion WILL converge over time, and Jesus will be properly recognized as Lord over everything.

I fully agree with that.

You've described the bible like an idol and equal to Jesus Himself, "unmoving, rock solid... we hold [it] dear in our hearts as our salvation". ?? No. We don't. I do not worship a book. John 5:39.

I disagree. On two counts.

1/ I did not describe the physical bible that sits on my bedside table, as something to be worshiped. It is paper and glue and leather.

2/ Jesus and the Word are equal. In fact:

John 1:1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The "Word" in this passage, is Jesus. He was with God and He is God. He is the creator. Jesus created everything. Jesus is the Word.

So, yes, they are equal.

Matthew 24:35King James Version (KJV)
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

So, no, I do not worship the physical book, I worship the God it tells me about and the Savior it is personified by when the "word became flesh"

It is the one and only source for us to know God, His actions in the past, His actions in the future, what this life holds for us and now and in the future. It is a living word and it holds all that God wants us to know.

Without it, where would you be?

 

[sfs]

Abiogenesis is at least Organic Chemistry and not Inorganic Chemistry. So Abiogensis is still closer related to Evolution (aka the Origin of Species) than the GUT of physics.

And none of them are required for understanding evolution.

 

[friend of]

And none of them are required for understanding evolution.

I never claimed they were. I was merely responding to the counterclaim that the concept of Abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution.

 

[sfs]

I never claimed they were. I was merely responding to the counterclaim that the concept of Abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution.

I'm pretty sure I didn't make that counterclaim, since I don't even think it's true.

 

[PeterDona]

I thought that the title of this thread meant that someone had finally taken the effort to calculate evolution, or the reasonability of evolution, but then not. See, the mathematical problem of evolution is that natural selection has to select for the beneficial mutations. And if even 1 in 10 (which is overestimated) mutations are beneficial, and there is say 100 mutations per generation in a human genome, then it will be mathematically impossible to ever get evolution to work. There are just too many bad mutations that will kill all effort in the end.

And that is just a very hard argument against evolution, but surprisingly neither creationists nor evolutionists ever aired that simple calculation.

 

[Everybodyknows]

That's kind of like saying astronauts need a planet the size of the moon in order to train for 0 gravity conditions in space.

No it's not. It's like saying that an event has a probability of happening in zero gravity so the bigger our zero gravity lab is the more chances we have of observing the said event.

Laboratory conditions are capable of enhancing the favorable conditions necessary in experimenting with anything, because said conditions can be fine-tuned at earliest perceived need. There's no need to recreate a natural primordial condition when you can feasibly recreate a better one, the point is to have life develop on it's own under laboratory settings. You shouldn't need an entire planet-sized ocean to obtain a single, single-celled organism. While the planet's ocean may have been even larger at that time than it is now, that doesn't mean all of said ocean was required in order for a cell to come about. That's actually really silly if you think about it.

Even if we create favourable conditions we are still looking for a probabilistic event to occur so we still could be waiting a long time. To flog the deck of cards analogy a little more, say we have a deck of cards and we have a particular winning combination of 40 cards, so I throw out the 12 cards that aren't in my winning combination. Now I have created more favourable conditions which have shifted the odds in my favour by orders of magnitude, but it will still take a very long time to hit my particular winning 40 card combination. Now say I want to speed things up a little so in my lab I develop the ability to shuffle a million decks of cards simultaneously, but the primordial ocean has the ability to shuffle trillions of decks simultaneously. It's needless to say that the primordial ocean has the potential the hit the winning combination in a much shorter time than my lab. Lab time is expensive so this is why waiting for a low probability event to occur isn't an ideal way to do this kind of research.

The thing is we don't even know what the winning combination is or how many cards are in it until we actually hit it. So a better way to go about things is to actually look at various known RNA molecules and see how they function, from there we can engineer RNAs with the traits we are looking for. Then we can evolve them under lab conditions (this is being done). RNAs that partially replicate have been created. An RNA that assembles another RNA larger than itself has been produced, suggesting that it is indeed possible for there to be one with the ability to copy itself. I would not be surprised if a self copying RNA is produced in a lab in our lifetime judging by the progress that has been made in the field over the last couple of decades. I'm sure people will say "but it's not really life, just a copying robot", which leads us to the interesting question of how we actually define life.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

So, tell me, what other source do you have, that tells you anything about God?

My heart.

What is your system that connects you to God?

The Holy Spirit.

How would you even know about God if it were not for the Bible?

My heart.

The Bible is and always was the "starting point".

There was no bible until the bible. Many before the existence of the bible believed and had faith in God.

For without it we would have nothing to base our belief on.

Disagree.

The Word made flesh is speaking in reference to how God created this universe by His Word (meaning He spoke it into existence and that Word He spoke was the work of Jesus). When John wrote this there was no bible.

The Matthew 24:35 reference is in regard to the temple being destroyed in AD 70. Heaven and earth is a reference to the temple and it did pass away as Jesus prophesied "Heaven and earth WILL pass away".

To bring this back to the thread, the bible must not be elevated to such a place that scientific discoveries must be subservient to it. When science finds something about our natural world, we must pray and discuss and figure out how the bible should be interpreted in light of the new information. Not the other way around. That mistake has been made for a long time. The whole field of science, it has been argued, was born from Christians attempting to learn about God through what He created. We should remain in that place where science helps theology and isn't some kind of "devil's tool". Science is a powerful tool for helping us learn about Who God is.

 

[friend of]

I'm pretty sure I didn't make that counterclaim, since I don't even think it's true.

Don't worry, it wasn't you.

 

[sfs]

Don't worry, it wasn't you.

Okay.

 

[JacksBratt]

My heart.

If I took the bible away, before you were born, in fact centuries before you were born, in such a way that there is no history of it..... what would your heart tell you about the gospel?

The Holy Spirit.

Without the Bible, how would you know that the Holy Spirit even existed?

My heart.

What does your heart tell you about the death and resurrection of Christ? About communion? About baptism? About Salvation?

There was no bible until the bible.

Well, that is rather profound.

Many before the existence of the bible believed and had faith in God.

How did people know about God before then? Adam and Eve spoke with Him. Abraham had visitors. Even in the desert, the Israelite's had pillars of smoke and fire. His presence was tangible.

What do we have today? The Bible.

Disagree.

So, without the Bible, what would you have to base your belief on? Something you feel in your heart? That is a very dangerous plan.

The Word made flesh is speaking in reference to how God created this universe by His Word (meaning He spoke it into existence and that Word He spoke was the work of Jesus).

Well, that is a theory I have not heard before. How do your work the part where it states:

John 1:14King James Version (KJV)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

When John wrote this there was no bible.

Correction.... there was no New Testament.

The Matthew 24:35 reference is in regard to the temple being destroyed in AD 70. Heaven and earth is a reference to the temple and it did pass away as Jesus prophesied "Heaven and earth WILL pass away".

Can you show me how this is not after the millennial age when God destroys the old heaven and the old earth and the new heaven descends upon the new earth and we live forever an ever in fellowship with God?

Revelation 21:1King James Version (KJV)

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

To bring this back to the thread, the bible must not be elevated to such a place that scientific discoveries must be subservient to it.

Au Contraire........ the Bible will be the only thing remaining that has a shred of truth. Science is the work of men, it is forever being proven wrong and rewritten. The Bible is a living text that will never change and be forever true.

Do you think that the observations, laws and theories of science today are the be all and end all... with no errors?

Do you think we know everything? Do you think nothing is not known that is to be known? Seriously?

When science finds something about our natural world, we must pray and discuss and figure out how the bible should be interpreted in light of the new information.

When there is a new scientific theory that contradicts the Bible, the scientific theory will, eventually, be found to be in error.

The truth of the Bible is not dependent on the observations, assumptions, measurements and extrapolations of mere mortal men. How arrogant is that?

Not the other way around. That mistake has been made for a long time. The whole field of science, it has been argued, was born from Christians attempting to learn about God through what He created. We should remain in that place where science helps theology and isn't some kind of "devil's tool". Science is a powerful tool for helping us learn about Who God is.

Science is a powerful tool. It is used to help us learn about God. Unless scientific observations and discoveries, that contradict the presumed "truth" of the secular world, are covered up, held as impossible and/or dismissed outright due to the simple fact that they do not fit the TOE or some other theory that exists to remove God from the picture.

We are entering an age where discoveries are being made and then presented as a hoax to discredit the fact.

No longer does science follow the trail of bread crumbs to see where it takes them... No, now they are hellbent on where they want to go. Any trail of breadcrumbs is ignored or they are spreading their own breadcrumbs on the path they want to take.

Whatever you do, do not present any fact that rocks the apple cart.

I could list them here but you would dismiss them as hoaxes solely on the fact that they have already been tainted with that label.

In the end, however all will be revealed and man will be shown to be the fool:

Mark 4:20-2221st Century King James Version (KJ21)

20 And these are they which are sown on good ground, such as hear the Word and receive it and bring forth fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”


21 And He said unto them, “Is a candle brought to be put under a basket or under a bed, and not to be set on a candlestick?


22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should be revealed.

 

[Open Heart]

Number of planets in the universe
10 ^ 50

Odd's of evolution happenning.
1 in 10 ^ 2 825 000

Math can also prove that you can't cross a street, since you must first cross half way, and to get THERE you must first cross half the distance, and to get THERE, you must first cross half the distance...

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Math can also prove that you can't cross a street, since you must first cross half way, and to get THERE you must first cross half the distance, and to get THERE, you must first cross half the distance...

Zeno's paradox! I use it to aid understanding of calculus and limits

 

[YouAreAwesome]

How did people know about God before then? Adam and Eve spoke with Him. Abraham had visitors. Even in the desert, the Israelite's had pillars of smoke and fire. His presence was tangible.

What do we have today? The Bible.

I see this as the crux of our difference. Even today God can interact with us as an experiential and pervasive Presence to know (experientially and intimately). If you believe He is the same yesterday, today and forever then He can still interact with us in the same way He interacted with Abraham. But the covenenat we are in is even better according to Hebrews right? So then His Presence and Person is available in an even greater way than ever before. "All will know Him" is the promise of the covenant we are in. The bible is a helpful tool as it gives us some history and insight and is authoritative because it is the best source we have. I would even say it is extremely relevant, helpful, powerful and not to be dismissed. But it is fallible. It is not perfect. And it is open to interpretation. My main point is how the bible is elevated into the place of God rather than pointing towards God. And also that a literal reading is unwise in many instances.

 

[JacksBratt]

I see this as the crux of our difference. Even today God can interact with us as an experiential and pervasive Presence to know (experientially and intimately). If you believe He is the same yesterday, today and forever then He can still interact with us in the same way He interacted with Abraham.

Oh, He could. However, we now have a direct line to Jesus and the Holy Spirit lives in us. There is not too many people that have visitors from God showing up to tell them they are having a baby, or, to get out of a town before it gets torched due to sin. We also don't need a pillar of smoke or fire to lead us where we are to go..... We have the scripture, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Abraham had none of these.

God IS the same. He just interacts a bit differently with us now.

The bible is a helpful tool as it gives us some history and insight and is authoritative because it is the best source we have. I would even say it is extremely relevant, helpful, powerful and not to be dismissed. But it is fallible. It is not perfect. And it is open to interpretation. My main point is how the bible is elevated into the place of God rather than pointing towards God. And also that a literal reading is unwise in many instances.

How has the Bible failed you? How is it fallible?
How is it not perfect?
Yes, it is open to interpretation. This has always been, has it not? Satan interpreted it one way (99% truth but 1% total lie) And that's what did Eve in and Adam as well.

A literal reading is only unwise if you are a scientist trying to justify that all this universe just happened to show up.... given a couple of billion years.

Anytime the bible is to be read as a story, parable, metaphor whatever..... it is easily discerned with a little bit of study of the characteristics of parables, poetry and other types of writing in the Bible.
As usual, dispelling the truth is much easier than the little bit of time it takes to get to the rest of the story.

Sadder still, is the fact that the majority of the people will follow the easy road and become the seeds that fell on the stony ground.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Oh, He could. However, we now have a direct line to Jesus and the Holy Spirit lives in us.

Yes exactly!

We also don't need a pillar of smoke or fire to lead us where we are to go.....

Exactly!

How has the Bible failed you? How is it fallible?
How is it not perfect?

One example of many: 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign. 2 Chronicles 22:2 says that he was 42 when he began to reign.

The next step to have a good think about is the inspiration process; did each writer write the EXACT words of God? Or were their own predispositions reflected in their work? These things are very much related to our interpreting Genesis and the thread. Though the thread is really about how an incorrect use of probability can cast doubt on just about anything.

 

[JacksBratt]

One example of many: 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign. 2 Chronicles 22:2 says that he was 42 when he began to reign.

Usually, if you dig, you can find the real story:

several ancient translations cast doubt upon the forty-two figure. Most manuscripts of the Septuagint have the number twenty, and one has twenty-two. Twenty-two is also reflected in the Syriac and the Arabic versions. Accordingly, some of the more current English translations have changed forty-two in 2 Chronicles 22:2, to twenty-two (NASB, NIV, ESV).

The next step to have a good think about is the inspiration process; did each writer write the EXACT words of God? Or were their own predispositions reflected in their work? These things are very much related to our interpreting Genesis and the thread. Though the thread is really about how an incorrect use of probability can cast doubt on just about anything.

Well, if you read into it, there are people who have written computer programs that analyze the original text from which the KJV and others is translated.

Taking every 7th letter, for instance, gives a new, hidden message. Take every 44th letter or 33rd letter and you get more shocking new messages that have been hidden until now.

This phenomenon is, of course, ignored, ridiculed, and denied... However, there is one man who started out dismissing it until he wrote his own program and now is a true believer in this interesting topic.

Again, if people don't believe in something they will simply discredit the person suggesting it.. Chuck Missler has had this happen to him.

He wrote a book called:

Cosmic Codes: Hidden Messages from the Edge of Eternity

In order for these codes to be functional....each individual letter of the original text would of had to be in perfect placement and order.... throughout hundreds of pages...

I would say that would indicate the answer to this question:

did each writer write the EXACT words of God?

as..Yes.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Accordingly, some of the more current English translations have changed forty-two

The problem is not resolved by changing things! That's the problem in the first place! If something needed to be changed, then someone made a mistake! But a mistake in the bible would mean it's fallible, right? This is only the tip of the iceberg with the problems. What I'm hearing from you is that the bible is word for word exactly God's words, as in, He basically sat down and wrote it!!!!! I'm sorry, but this view is so ridiculous that I don't know what to say. Wow.

As for bible codes, you'll find the same patterns in Moby Dick.

 

[Anguspure]

You are making the assumption that the original replicator must have been more complex than any individual component in the mechanism of modern life forms, but these components themselves are the result of over 3.5 billion years of selective pressures. There is no reason the original replicator must have consisted of a number of organised components, it could have been a single molecule (RNA most likely) or a cocktail of a few different ones producing copies of eachother. If life arose from non-life by natural processes then the original chemistry of life would necessarily have to have been fairly simple, and simple replicators have been created in labs already. So no, the direction of the odds is not so clear.

Even if the RNA hypothesis is correct (and it is difficult to see how it is) RNA is protein based. Therefore in terms of functional coherence you at least have to have the levels of functionality that give us the correct proteins to perform the job. Then you have at least 2 or 3 levels of functionality to tackle before you even get to the level of RNA.

Clearly you don't understand functional coherence as a concept. It is likely that the functional coherence observed in the paragraph above is such that it is fantastically improbable that it arose by chance within the time of the universe. So unless you can demonstrate that a self replicatiing biological form displays significantly less functional coherence than a simple paragraph of written language then you are spouting something much worse than magic.

Have a read of this discussion of the probabilities of life arising. It seems we can almost fudge any numbers we like to assert our point of view. Why is this probability any less correct that the OP video? At least this talk origins discussion takes into account many other factors such as the volume of the ocean and the concentration of amino acids etc. But again it's assuming a starting point for life without good evidence in much the same way the OP video does. So we have a range of estimations of the probability of life that range from almost inevitable to impossible. Take note of the conclusion of the article I linked which I think puts it best:

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.​

It seems that the opposition to the evolution fairy tale just can't please the believers.

We simplify things to the point of absurdity in order to demonstrate that even if life was as ridiculously basic and flat as a written paragraph or a simple robot that it couldn't have arisen by chance, thereby implying that anything displaying a greater degree of functional coherence is less probable, and then you start taking into account other factors as if that is going to help anything in your argument.

It is not coin flipping we are proposing.

Quite simply "bio" chemistry does not get off ground zero without the "bio" bit, and the only mechanism even remotely on the horizon that will transform simple chemistry into a biological form is one that involves a mind.

The suggestion of coin flipping does not belong in the camp of the opposition, rather it belongs as the only identifiable possibility for origins for those who wish to deny a mind.

You can pontificate all you like about possible future discoveries (of which the evo devo field is making things much worse for the mindless crowd) but it is all quite simply laughable, the emperor has no clothes and I for one refuse to be so gullible.

 

[stevevw]

I am serious too. The video is lying. I'm not sure what dealing with God has to do with that fact. Do you think I'd be more godly if I ignored the falsehoods? Take a really simple one: the claim that any probability less than 1/10^50 is so small that an event with that probability will never occur. If you pick up a deck of 52 cards and shuffle it, the probability that you'll get any particular arrangement of cards is well over a quadrillion times smaller than that number -- and yet such an event happens every time you shuffle a deck.

I don't think that is how it works as far as life is concerned. The deck of cards example for life would then to get one particular arrangement of cards and not any arrangement. Each and every card needs to be a particular type and pattern and each and every card needs to be in the right order. Oh and the deck is not 52 cards but millions of cards.

 

[Speedwell]

If I took the bible away, before you were born, in fact centuries before you were born, in such a way that there is no history of it..... what would your heart tell you about the gospel?


Without the Bible, how would you know that the Holy Spirit even existed?





What does your heart tell you about the death and resurrection of Christ? About communion? About baptism? About Salvation?





Well, that is rather profound.



How did people know about God before then? Adam and Eve spoke with Him. Abraham had visitors. Even in the desert, the Israelite's had pillars of smoke and fire. His presence was tangible.

What do we have today? The Bible.




So, without the Bible, what would you have to base your belief on? Something you feel in your heart? That is a very dangerous plan.



Well, that is a theory I have not heard before. How do your work the part where it states:

John 1:14King James Version (KJV)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.




Correction.... there was no New Testament.



Can you show me how this is not after the millennial age when God destroys the old heaven and the old earth and the new heaven descends upon the new earth and we live forever an ever in fellowship with God?

Revelation 21:1King James Version (KJV)

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.



Au Contraire........ the Bible will be the only thing remaining that has a shred of truth. Science is the work of men, it is forever being proven wrong and rewritten. The Bible is a living text that will never change and be forever true.

Do you think that the observations, laws and theories of science today are the be all and end all... with no errors?

Do you think we know everything? Do you think nothing is not known that is to be known? Seriously?


When there is a new scientific theory that contradicts the Bible, the scientific theory will, eventually, be found to be in error.

The truth of the Bible is not dependent on the observations, assumptions, measurements and extrapolations of mere mortal men. How arrogant is that?



Science is a powerful tool. It is used to help us learn about God. Unless scientific observations and discoveries, that contradict the presumed "truth" of the secular world, are covered up, held as impossible and/or dismissed outright due to the simple fact that they do not fit the TOE or some other theory that exists to remove God from the picture.

We are entering an age where discoveries are being made and then presented as a hoax to discredit the fact.

No longer does science follow the trail of bread crumbs to see where it takes them... No, now they are hellbent on where they want to go. Any trail of breadcrumbs is ignored or they are spreading their own breadcrumbs on the path they want to take.

Whatever you do, do not present any fact that rocks the apple cart.

I could list them here but you would dismiss them as hoaxes solely on the fact that they have already been tainted with that label.

In the end, however all will be revealed and man will be shown to be the fool:

Mark 4:20-2221st Century King James Version (KJ21)

20 And these are they which are sown on good ground, such as hear the Word and receive it and bring forth fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”


21 And He said unto them, “Is a candle brought to be put under a basket or under a bed, and not to be set on a candlestick?


22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should be revealed.

So evidently you believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and that the churches who don't adhere to that doctrine are apostate?