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

[Nicholas taylor]

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.

Well on these occasions they have. Like I said Francis crick sat around and estimated the probability. Many other scientists have dome also, maybe it is absurd. But let's say no one actually did that with numbers. Every scientific claim unless factual is basically put down to probability and theory. So by you telling me they never do that doesn't have me sold. Supporting evidence can be put down to probable reasoning like I said, Darwin himself did it.

 

[Ophiolite]

It has become quite evident that Charles Darwin did not explain the origins of life very well.

That is a very odd thing to say. Darwin made no public attempt to explain the origin of life. The closest he came in writing was in the famed 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker in which he observed: " It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Perhaps you meant it has become quite evident to you, for it has been evident to biology community for a century and a half. It's also worth noting that he also failed to explain how to make a superb crepe suzette, but just as with the origin of life, that was because he never intended to.

it seems to me an incredible leap of faith to continue believing that nothing created everything through natural selection.

It could well be so, but scientists do not claim this occurred.

First, as a general point, the universe seems to have emerged from four fundamental forces, a handful of elementary particles and a suite of constants. That is, most decidedly, not nothing.

Then, specifically, natural selection is not the only mechanism at work in evolution. There is also genetic drift and sexual selection.

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.

Every day I see the moon orbit the Earth, I see rain fall from the sky, I see weathering of rock and movement of soil. None of these events are occuring through design. They are occuring through the expression of the fundamental forces and constants I referred to earlier. Vast mountains have been constructed over millions of years with a complex internal structure that brings together diverse igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks, displaying the end result of complicated physical, chemical and biological interactions, all governed by the aforementioned forces and constants. So, the idea of emergent complexity is not that far fetched.

Edit: Corrected "famed 1971 letter" to "famed 1871 letter". If Darwin had written the letter in 1971 it would have been even more famous!

 

[Nicholas taylor]

That is a very odd thing to say. Darwin made no public attempt to explain the origin of life. The closest he came in writing was in the famed 1971 letter to Joseph Hooker in which he observed: " It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Perhaps you meant it has become quite evident to you, for it has been evident to biology community for a century and a half. It's also worth noting that he also failed to explain how to make a superb crepe suzette, but just as with the origin of life, that was because he never intended to.

It could well be so, but scientists do not claim this occurred.

First, as a general point, the universe seems to have emerged from four fundamental forces, a handful of elementary particles and a suite of constants. That is, most decidedly, not nothing.

Then, specifically, natural selection is not the only mechanism at work in evolution. There is also genetic drift and sexual selection.

Every day I see the moon orbit the Earth, I see rain fall from the sky, I see weathering of rock and movement of soil. None of these events are occuring through design. They are occuring through the expression of the fundamental forces and constants I referred to earlier. Vast mountains have been constructed over millions of years with a complex internal structure that brings together diverse igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks, displaying the end result of complicated physical, chemical and biological interactions, all governed by the aforementioned forces and constants. So, the idea of emergent complexity is not that far fetched.

You make three very valid points, thanks for that
I guess the first one is my bad. I didn't read his book I just saw the title "the origin of species" . and guess I mixed it up with life. Looks like he purposely stayed away from the title "origins of life".
As far as the something from nothing is concerned I heard Dawkins talking about this.
And your third point, well I'm not sure about it because we can create things that run themselves also. The watch for example was created by someone and given to someone else who has no idea how it works but it still works.

 

[Ophiolite]

You make three very valid points, thanks for that

Thank you for your positive response and for recognising my intent was to inform, not browbeat, or "prove wrong".

I guess the first one is my bad. I didn't read his book I just saw the title "the origin of species" . and guess I mixed it up with life. Looks like he purposely stayed away from the title "origins of life".

Other members have commented on your "argument from incredulity". You are taking on a difficult task to argue a case in which you are presently not well informed. I just did a quick count of the books I have by Darwin or directly about Darwin. There are sixteen and while there are three or four I have not yet read, some I have read multiple times. If you add in my volumes on biology in general, evolution in particular and creationism/ID, then it is, I think, over one hundred. And I'm an amateur compared with some of the members. I would be happy to answer or try to answer any specific questions you have on any aspect of evolution in order to help you frame your counter arguments more effectively. (Of course, you realise I have the ulterior motive of bringing you to the recognition that the alternative arguments do not hold much water. )

As far as the something from nothing is concerned I heard Dawkins talking about this.

I'm not a great fan of Dawkins (though I do recommend his Ancestor's Tale.) I find his brand of belligerent atheism offensive.

And your third point, well I'm not sure about it because we can create things that run themselves also. The watch for example was created by someone and given to someone else who has no idea how it works but it still works.

There is no doubt that many things give the appearance of design. The design argument was presented very effectively by William Paley, who spoke of encountering a watch on a heath and deducing that it must have had a designer. Darwin was greatly taken by his work. He took a copy with him on the Beagle and it influenced his structuring of On the Origin of Species.

But what Darwin showed so eloquently in On the Origin of Species was that this apparent design could be achieved through the mechanism of natural selection. The work by tens of thousands of researchers in palaeontology, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, embryology, zoology, ethology, botany and the like has simply expanded and refined that simple notion.

It's an awesome process, whether it was set in motion by natural events or by a creator. Either way, we should sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[Larniavc]

I could be off in my understanding of science,

Yeah, that’s the problem.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Generally yes. There are many mysteries in science and turning to "god"
as the solution is frowned upon, even by the Christians who founded
modern science.

 

[SkyWriting]

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 (

) 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.

I don't see why that doesn't match my original statement:

SkyWriting said: ↑
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".

 

[Nicholas taylor]

Thank you for your positive response andmy intent was to inform, not browbeat, or "prove wrong".

Other members have commented on your "argument from incredulity". You are taking on a difficult task to argue a case in which you are presently not well informed. I just did a quick count of the books I have by Darwin or directly about Darwin. There are sixteen and while there are three or four I have not yet read, some I have read multiple times. If you add in my volumes on biology in general, evolution in particular and creationism/ID, then it is, I think, over one hundred. And I'm an amateur compared with some of the members. I would be happy to answer or try to answer any specific questions you have on any aspect of evolution in order to help you frame your counter arguments more effectively. (Of course, you realise I have the ulterior motive of bringing you to the recognition that the alternative arguments do not hold much water. )

I'm not a great fan of Dawkins (though I do recommend his Ancestor's Tale.) I find his brand of belligerent atheism offensive.

There is no doubt that many things give the appearance of design. The design argument was presented very effectively by William Paley, who spoke of encountering a watch on a heath and deducing that it must have had a designer. Darwin was greatly taken by his work. He took a copy with him on the Beagle and it influenced his structuring of On the Origin of Species.

But what Darwin showed so eloquently in On the Origin of Species was that this apparent design could be achieved through the mechanism of natural selection. The work by tens of thousands of researchers in palaeontology, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, embryology, zoology, ethology, botany and the like has simply expanded and refined that simple notion.

It's an awesome process, whether it was set in motion by natural events or by a creator. Either way, we should sit back and enjoy the show.

Well you are spot on that I am not well informed. I am way out of my league here. A few days ago I watched some YouTube and read some articles. That's pretty much as far as I've dabbled into it, and already I'm overwhelmed with the immense process that is thought to have taken place to be where we are today.

As a Christian and with many other of my brothers, we believe in God ("the spirit of God") mainly because a personal relationship with him has taken place. I guess the endeavour to produce an argument opposed to evolution, is an endeavour to get a man who believes he owns himself to consider who owns his spirit.

The bible however is not a science book. And personally I think a creationist view in a literal sense from a bible bashers perspective is ridiculous. Man while being swayed by his own mind makes up his own interpretations of everything especially the bible. In a few places in scripture it describes 1 day being like 1000 years to God, meaning for us as men to set time frames for the first day of creation and the second are silly. The bible does not say it took one day to do this or that, John Lennox a great debater makes a good point about this.
Science of course endures to ground various theories and give good supporting reasoning to interpretation. So its very understandable that people would choose science over religion. (mind you religion is the biggest deception of the last 10 centuries and the bible strives to make this very clear, Catholicism for example is a long throw from a personal relationship)

Ive never heard the term "incredulity" come up as an argument before. Considering the idea of scientific studies being recorded and accepted, it must be hard for incredulity and science to co exist.

I maybe wrong but Im getting the impression that an argument on incredulity would mean accepting what we don't know in science rather than interpreting something by what we know now? For example putting a number to protein synthesis by chance is foolish as it would only be constructed on the basis of what we know today, is this right?
If so, does scientific interpretation actually work this way? We build our studies upon the backs of studies already made. evolution could be a prime example. How can science ever be credible if we never know something for certain. But again I may have the wrong idea.

The term meaning unwilling or unable to believe something! This is a credible statement for many things. 200 people say the ball is blue, I say the ball is blue also, I am incredulity to consider my annoying mate telling me its red. Unless the previous paragraph is valid and everyone has been fooled because of lack in better knowledge.

Actually seems to make a good case for God.

 

[Nicholas taylor]

Well you are spot on that I am not well informed. I am way out of my league here. A few days ago I watched some YouTube and read some articles. That's pretty much as far as I've dabbled into it, and already I'm overwhelmed with the immense process that is thought to have taken place to be where we are today.

As a Christian and with many other of my brothers, we believe in God ("the spirit of God") mainly because a personal relationship with him has taken place. I guess the endeavour to produce an argument opposed to evolution, is an endeavour to get a man who believes he owns himself to consider who owns his spirit.

The bible however is not a science book. And personally I think a creationist view in a literal sense from a bible bashers perspective is ridiculous. Man while being swayed by his own mind makes up his own interpretations of everything especially the bible. In a few places in scripture it describes 1 day being like 1000 years to God, meaning for us as men to set time frames for the first day of creation and the second are silly. The bible does not say it took one day to do this or that, John Lennox a great debater makes a good point about this.
Science of course endures to ground various theories and give good supporting reasoning to interpretation. So its very understandable that people would choose science over religion. (mind you religion is the biggest deception of the last 10 centuries and the bible strives to make this very clear, Catholicism for example is a long throw from a personal relationship)

Ive never heard the term "incredulity" come up as an argument before. Considering the idea of scientific studies being recorded and accepted, it must be hard for incredulity and science to co exist.

I maybe wrong but Im getting the impression that an argument on incredulity would mean accepting what we don't know in science rather than interpreting something by what we know now? For example putting a number to protein synthesis by chance is foolish as it would only be constructed on the basis of what we know today, is this right?
If so, does scientific interpretation actually work this way? We build our studies upon the backs of studies already made. evolution could be a prime example. How can science ever be credible if we never know something for certain. But again I may have the wrong idea.

The term meaning unwilling or unable to believe something! This is a credible statement for many things. 200 people say the ball is blue, I say the ball is blue also, I am incredulity to consider my annoying mate telling me its red. Unless the previous paragraph is valid and everyone has been fooled because of lack in better knowledge.

Actually seems to make a good case for God.

Hang on scrap the idea I had on incredulity, just looked it up. If there's evidence to believe something then that's fine but if there's no evidence to disbelieve it then the argument starts, no matter how big the percieved chance would be. OK sorry think I get it now .

This term must come up a lot now that people started saying the chance of evolution was impossible. Possibly or possibly not a worthy defence

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hang on scrap the idea I had on incredulity, just looked it up. If there's evidence to believe something then that's fine but if there's no evidence to disbelieve it then the argument starts, no matter how big the percieved chance would be. OK sorry think I get it now .

This term must come up a lot now that people started saying the chance of evolution was impossible. Possibly or possibly not a worthy defence

The argument from incredulity has two facets that are usually combined - the first is plain incredulity, e.g. "that [sounds ridiculous/doesn't make sense/seems absurd], so it can't be [right/true]"; the second is lack of understanding, e.g. "I don't understand how it can be [right/true], so it can't be [right/true]".

It also applies where a claim is rejected because it conflicts with personal beliefs or convictions, e.g. "Evolution can't be true because God created each kind separately"

So the argument from incredulity is a form of argument from ignorance.

 

[Ophiolite]

So its very understandable that people would choose science over religion.

And there are equally valid reasons for choosing religion over science. However, neither sets of reason are correct. There is no need to make a choice.

Do you require to make a choice between a tweed jacket and scrambled eggs on toast? (Well, perhaps if you are working on a tight budget!) They fulfill different functions. One provides protection from the elments, the other provides sustenance. And so science and religion meet different needs and use different methods to do so.

Those who use science to invalidate religion are egotistic fools. Those who use religion to deny science are foolish egotists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

As has already been mentioned, the theory of evolution is concerned with explaining the variety of life, i.e. given life, how can we explain its variety?

The subject you're discussing is abiogenesis. No scientist working in that field thinks that it is likely that a 'simple cell' formed as you describe. The 'simple' cells we see today are the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution, just like all other life. Many in the field think it likely that the first replicators were just single molecules (e.g. of RNA). There is a wide variety of ideas being worked on - for a very readable summary see the BBC article, The Secret of How Life on Earth Began.

 

[Nicholas taylor]

There is no need to make a choice.

That's a dangerous perspective. Considering what the bible says. Considering what God sacrificed for you personally. To reject him as being a choice so bluntly could be the worst thing you ever do. I don't know the debates between science and God. When ever there's an argument its about science and the beginning of life, on the evolutionists terms, never on what a Christian really cares about. We can learn all we want in this life about how it works but there just may be a spiritual life after where you wish you had have thought more about whether it matters to make a choice. I believe it as much as I believe I exist. Scientifically proven evidence all through my own life. Not to mention every church in every town having heard of miracles God has done within those churches. None are so blind that they cannot see.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't see why that doesn't match my original statement: '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".'

In Quantum mechanics, the electron does not follow 'a' path. So it is not that the path is so complex we don't understand it, but that no such path exists.

In the famous two slit experiment, if you try to force the results into giving meaning to a path that the electron follows, you are led to the conclusion that the electron takes both paths (i.e. passes through both slits). This is not something that a single electron ought to be able to do if we think of it as a classical particle.

Although we still talk about things as particles, in the quantum world they are no longer teeny-tiny rocks. Although we may talk of electrons orbiting the nucleus in an atom, this is not an accurate reflection of reality. A better model is that the particle is fully described by its wavefunction (which is spread out over space) and rather than a linear path, we calculate the time-evolution of the wavefunction.

Such as for a single particle in a box.

 

[SkyWriting]

In Quantum mechanics, the electron does not follow 'a' path. So it is not that the path is so complex we don't understand it, but that no such path exists.

In the famous two slit experiment, if you try to force the results into giving meaning to a path that the electron follows, you are led to the conclusion that the electron takes both paths (i.e. passes through both slits). This is not something that a single electron ought to be able to do if we think of it as a classical particle.

Although we still talk about things as particles, in the quantum world they are no longer teeny-tiny rocks. Although we may talk of electrons orbiting the nucleus in an atom, this is not an accurate reflection of reality. A better model is that the particle is fully described by its wavefunction (which is spread out over space) and rather than a linear path, we calculate the time-evolution of the wavefunction.

Such as for a single particle in a box.

I don't see why that doesn't match my original statement.
You seem to be saying that electrons don't exist.
This would be news worthy.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't see why that doesn't match my original statement.
You seem to be saying that electrons don't exist.
This would be news worthy.

No, what it boils down to is that our imaginations are incapable of accurately vizualizing the electron or its behavior, that any 'picture in our minds' of an electron will be wrong. That is very far from saying it doesn't exist.

 

[sfs]

I don't see why that doesn't match my original statement.

Your original statement was about electrons circling a nucleus in a complex pattern. They don't circle and there is no complex pattern.

 

[bhsmte]

Living in fear of scientific theories, can't be a lot of fun.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's a dangerous perspective. Considering what the bible says. Considering what God sacrificed for you personally. To reject him as being a choice so bluntly could be the worst thing you ever do. I don't know the debates between science and God. When ever there's an argument its about science and the beginning of life, on the evolutionists terms, never on what a Christian really cares about. We can learn all we want in this life about how it works but there just may be a spiritual life after where you wish you had have thought more about whether it matters to make a choice. I believe it as much as I believe I exist. Scientifically proven evidence all through my own life. Not to mention every church in every town having heard of miracles God has done within those churches. None are so blind that they cannot see.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. You do not need to choose between following God or following science. Millions of people around the world and most Christian denominations do not make or require such a choice. You can follow God as regards matters spiritual and science as regards material issues, as to how the world works.

I have been led to believe that Christians search for truth and understanding. Spirtual truth can be reached by them through God. Understanding of the world can be reached through science. There is no need for any conflict between the two. The conflict arises because a minority of fundamentalist Christian sects insist upon a literal translation of the Bible that requires they reject the well evidenced theories regarding the age of the universe and the Earth, and the evolution of life.

You say "there just may be a spiritual life after where you wish you had have thought more about whether it matters to make a choice". Very true, there may well be. But do I make choice between the spiritual life suggested by the Jews, or by the Muslims, or by the Hindus, or by the Christians, or by the Hopi Indians, or by the Bushmen of the Kalahari. All of these religions have detailed beliefs covering orgins, and morals, and spiritual matters. Which is the correct choice? Based on the evidence, none of them.

As to miracles in every church in every town, I'm pretty sure the staid congregations of the Church of Scotland where I worshipped would take a very dim view of such a claim. It strikes me as almost heretical!

 

[USincognito]

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.

There's two problems with this post.
1. The supposed 10^40,000 calculation is based on mathematical slight of hand by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.
2. It's actually a calculation of an enzyme spontaneously and instantaneously forming and thus has nothing to do with evolution.