• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why can't anyone see this, its like a great delusion.

Feb 3, 2018
17
16
41
baguio
✟23,533.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
It has become quite evident that Charles Darwin did not explain the origins of life very well. He did a great job of portraying minor variations of natural selection and in many cases he is correct. But his endeavor to convince man that all appearances of a great design can be explained via natural selection is falling apart. The evolving world from its environment is a far cry from the fundamental innovations to the beginning of life.

There have been many great minds in the field of evolution and how things have transformed, but so far any evo explanations of the origins of life are insufficient and limiting as even evolutionists are stuck on the idea of where the genetic information of DNA came from.

Darwin became public with his discoveries on the Origin of Species in the 1850’s. he formed a valid idea of species changing due to their environment. However, the discovery of DNA had not come about until 100 years later in the 1950’s.
For us to now understand how the specified information and complexity of DNA and RNA form the basis of each cell, it seems to me an incredible leap of faith to continue believing that nothing created everything through natural selection.

If you ask most people today, they will say there is no science in the idea of a design or of a God, and apparently there “is” science behind the idea of evolution. I’m yet to see or understand the science of evolution but even without scientific studies, you know as well as I do that you build, you design, you create stuff every single day. So the idea of a design is not that far-fetched. Yet the idea of even 1 protein creating itself by chance is said to be so far beyond impossible it’s hard for an intelligent mind to grasp.

Francis Crick a co-discoverer of the DNA helix, estimated that the chance of even one protein creating itself is 1 in 10 to the pwr of 164. To understand the magnitude of this number, an example is given in the idea of rolling two dice and getting double 6’s 150,000 times in a row. Another example is being blindfolded and picking out the correct particle amongst all particles in the known universe times 2. Many mathematicians accept that 1 in 10 to the 50th power is an impossibility. There are hundreds of different functioning proteins in one cell and hundreds of trillions of cells that perform different functions in the human body.

When you start to think how the hundreds of base pairs perfectly ordered in a double DNA Helix transcribe into hundreds of RNA base pairs that organize the hundreds of amino acids in a specific sequence to create a specific protein to function in a specific way your mind boggles.

But let’s say nothing is impossible, especially with unlimited time. If by some chance that 1 protein created itself at the same time hundreds of other proteins created their selves in the same location to be close enough to form a simple cell. That action would need to have been known ahead of time somehow because the cell would need to know how to eat, digest, excrete and replicate itself in its short lifespan. Otherwise, It may take another quadrillion years to get another go.

Now the theory of evolution is that it took very small steps in conjunction with chance. Granted that this allows a better chance that chance had its way. Although there are many arguments about this still being an impossible process even tho it was slowly creeping along like a mountain building itself. Lets have a look at what natural selection or stuff happening by itself has created.

We don’t live in a gray mush puddle of chemical soup that has no idea of beauty. Everything that has made itself somehow is magnificent. From the stars at night to the sun sets and rises in the day. The blue oceans that we sit and look at all day to individual families with birds, animals, humans, my wife and daughter, consciousness and emotions. The flowers of the field that have no other reason than to portray beauty or the trees that still care enough to keep us alive. Im confused how we look at this thing and laugh at people who believe in a God.

Romans 1:20; For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they are without excuse.

I could be off in my understanding of science, but still, why is the idea of this post being created and designed by a higher intelligence less believable than the letters rearranging themselves overtime to make something understandable? Is not one cell that knew ahead of its existence it was going to be apart of your eye much more complex.
References:
Google search
 

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Couple points:

1) Any probability calculations in relation to the origin of life, formation of DNA/proteins/whatever, tend to be inherently useless. This is given by the fact we often don't have enough information to make such a calculation meaningful and nobody thinks that the formation of organic material is purely a random circumstance when considering processes and natural chemical laws involved.

2) Arguments couched in "awe and wonder" of life or the universe aren't particularly compelling. It's just an appeal emotion in lieu of a more reasoned, logical argument. Being amazed by something or finding something beautiful tells us nothing about its origin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,473
19,169
Colorado
✟536,492.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Wonder and awe can attach to the outcome regardless of the explanation of the outcome. Created or evolved, is the world any less beautiful?

As for the process itself, I cant decide which would be more awesome: a grand top-down plan? or bottom up emergence? I think emergence has the edge for me, but only by a bit.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What you got there, OP, is one nice big argument from incredulity. We’re not impressed by how much you don’t know.

If you want to believe “gogdidit,” fine, but don’t expect those of us who do understand ToE to take you seriously. If you’d like to gain an understanding, then pipe down and ask a question.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I could be off in my understanding of science, but still, why is the idea of this post being created and designed by a higher intelligence less believable than the letters rearranging themselves overtime to make something understandable? Is not one cell that knew ahead of its existence it was going to be apart of your eye much more complex.

Looking for one electron circling a nucleus, it has been determined that the path is so complex and unpredictable that it is now termed an "Electron Cloud". Even the smallest unit of existence is too complex to map. Bud God plans the path for each electron and holds it in it's path.

16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.


electron-cloud.jpg
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yet the idea of even 1 protein creating itself by chance is said to be so far beyond impossible it’s hard for an intelligent mind to grasp.

You'd think grade school kids would learn how to build at least one.

main-qimg-f0e774d8e7718f22912d39e8bdbbb1fe
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,822
7,840
65
Massachusetts
✟391,238.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Looking for one electron circling a nucleus, it has been determined that the path is so complex and unpredictable that it is now termed an "Electron Cloud".
Well, no. It's been determined that "'one electron circling a nucleus" is a bad model for an electron in an atom. Replacement models -- which all employ quantum mechanics -- are not really complex. The math may be hard for some people to grasp, but the thing being described is pretty simple.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
If you ask most people today, they will say there is no science in the idea of a design or of a God, and apparently there “is” science behind the idea of evolution.

yep. the evidence for design is real as you can see with this example:

the self replicating watch argument

about the protein\gene calculation: a tipical gene is about 1000 bp long. the sequence space is about 4^1000. and this is indeed a huge sequence space even if we assume a 4.5 by planet.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I could be off in my understanding of science, but still, why is the idea of this post being created and designed by a higher intelligence less believable than the letters rearranging themselves overtime to make something understandable?
The 'science' of the world, carnal knowledge of things (worldly), is not true nor is it meant to be true ; only to "appear" to fit, to pretend to be true, to deceive others all the time.
The 'science' originating from God, His Knowledge and His Wisdom, Heavenly Truth, is always truth, and is meant to be true all the time, no matter that society always rejects it.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The 'science' of the world, carnal knowledge of things (worldly), is not true nor is it meant to be true ; only to "appear" to fit, to pretend to be true, to deceive others all the time.
The 'science' originating from God, His Knowledge and His Wisdom, Heavenly Truth, is always truth, and is meant to be true all the time, no matter that society always rejects it.
I reject word salad.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, no. It's been determined that "'one electron circling a nucleus" is a bad model for an electron in an atom. Replacement models -- which all employ quantum mechanics -- are not really complex. The math may be hard for some people to grasp, but the thing being described is pretty simple.
Go ahead then, I'm listening.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 3, 2018
17
16
41
baguio
✟23,533.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
I find it amazing how those who have chosen not to believe in a design use mockery as there main point of opposition. Is it so foolish to believe in a creator over something from nothing. To the rational mind and as we perceive ourselves as creators, the idea that everything in nature is by some random chance is a hard one to grasp yet most believers don't mock the other. Over time you notice two different spirits coming from two different arguments. I see it over and over again, if a non believer doesn't have the answer they turn to mockery. It must pain them that it usually falls on a joyful heart.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,822
7,840
65
Massachusetts
✟391,238.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Go ahead then, I'm listening.
The thing being described -- an electron's 'orbit' -- is a wave function whose complex square yields the probability of finding the electron at a given position. The probability of the electron having a certain momentum is given by the position operator (
af612227facfac90700a45a9c72bc029852fff97
) operating on the wave function. There is no description of an electron actually orbiting anything.

ETA: the position operator didn't take, I see. The operator is -i times h time the gradient operator divided by 2 pi.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I find it amazing how those who have chosen not to believe in a design use mockery as there main point of opposition.

There has been no mockery in this thread. Just because others don't agree with you, doesn't mean we are necessarily mocking you or your beliefs. We just don't find your arguments particularly compelling.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
Feb 3, 2018
17
16
41
baguio
✟23,533.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
There has been no mockery in this thread. Just because others don't agree with you, doesn't mean we are necessarily mocking you or your beliefs. We just don't find your arguments particularly compelling.
OK fair enough, maybe I'm just used to being mocked on the subject so have learnt to perceive criticism as that.

When you say its not a compelling argument, how do you man exactly. On the basis of rationality? Or on the basis of science, or what exactly. If my argument is not incorrect then its definitely compelling on both rationality and scientific. Darwin said it himself "if there is no definitive answer we draw to the closest possibility". 1 in 10 to the 164th power is surely not the most probable answer.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
OK fair enough, maybe I'm just used to being mocked on the subject so have learnt to perceive criticism as that.

When you say its not a compelling argument, how do you man exactly. On the basis of rationality? Or on the basis of science, or what exactly. If my argument is not incorrect then its definitely compelling on both rationality and scientific. Darwin said it himself "if there is no definitive answer we draw to the closest possibility". 1 in 10 to the 164th power is surely not the most probable answer.

I gave you my reasons in the second post of this thread.

In a nutshell, any probability calculations regarding the origin of life/DNA/etc are pretty meaningless, since we don't have enough information (i.e. known variables) to make a meaningful calculation.

And talking about the beauty or wonder or whatever about our universe and things in it doesn't provide any evidence of its origin.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
OK fair enough, maybe I'm just used to being mocked on the subject so have learnt to perceive criticism as that.

When you say its not a compelling argument, how do you man exactly. On the basis of rationality? Or on the basis of science, or what exactly. If my argument is not incorrect then its definitely compelling on both rationality and scientific. Darwin said it himself "if there is no definitive answer we draw to the closest possibility". 1 in 10 to the 164th power is surely not the most probable answer.
Arguments from big numbers don’t make arguments from incredulity more valid.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 3, 2018
17
16
41
baguio
✟23,533.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Arguments from big numbers don’t make arguments from incredulity more valid.
Yes they do! Science is the interpretation of something observed. If 1 in 10 to the 50th pwr is accepted to have a "zero probability" and a case against evolution arose being 1 in 10 to the 40,000th pwr probable. Then their is surely a valid argument for incredulity there somewhere. The science becomes unsupported and even theory has no strength behind it. If big numbers have no place in the chance of evolution then fine. But well known scientists etc are the ones coming up with these interpretations not me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KenJackson
Upvote 0
Feb 3, 2018
17
16
41
baguio
✟23,533.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
I gave you my reasons in the second post of this thread.

In a nutshell, any probability calculations regarding the origin of life/DNA/etc are pretty meaningless, since we don't have enough information (i.e. known variables) to make a meaningful calculation.

And talking about the beauty or wonder or whatever about our universe and things in it doesn't provide any evidence of its origin.
Do you believe there is evidence of evolution explaining the "origin of life". And another question, is there or should we have more than two options " evolution vs creationism ".
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes they do! Science is the interpretation of something observed. If 1 in 10 to the 50th pwr is accepted to have a "zero probability" and a case against evolution arose being 1 in 10 to the 40,000th pwr probable. Then their is surely a valid argument for incredulity there somewhere. The science becomes unsupported and even theory has no strength behind it. If big numbers have no place in the chance of evolution then fine. But well known scientists etc are the ones coming up with these interpretations not me.
How improbable you think something may be is not an argument. Scientists don’t sit around assigning arbitrary numbers to real events, that would be absurd. Arguments from big numbers is a canard imagined by creationists to bamboozle gullible theists. Instead, you should be conducting research that would support your hypothesis. If you’re correct, it will supplant our current model as a better explanation. Reality has a way of being real.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0