The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Timberrrrrrrr · 22-01-2017 02:09PM

J C wrote: »

... and where is the 'different life' on planets with different specifications to the Earth?
}b]Mars was regarded as such a planet ... but no life (of any type) has been detected there.[/b]

You are quite entitled to hold it as a matter of dogmatic faith that there is life elsewhere in the Universe ... but there is no objective evidence for such a belief.

Yet, we have literally scratched the surface of that planet. What of the hundreds of billions of other planets?

robinph · 22-01-2017 05:32PM

J C wrote: »

The existence of any old Universe proves nothing ... but the existence of our finely tuned, complex, specified, law-driven and perfectly functional Universe declares it's source to be something of God-like scale and capacity.

How do you know that our universe is anything special? You've got nothing to compare it with to be able to backup that claim. Even if there was something special about the universe, it still doesn't prove God though. It only proves we can measure stuff and that the thing is that size.

J C · 22-01-2017 08:14PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If this universe is so perfectly functional then why is our sun going to blow up one day and destroy this planet?

Why do meteors hit here and wipe a large % of the life out?

The Universe is perfectly functional ... but not absolutely perfect ... not since the Fall ... and the introducion of sin and death (and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) into the Universe.

J C · 22-01-2017 08:16PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yet, we have literally scratched the surface of that planet. What of the hundreds of billions of other planets?

If there is lfe on any of them then we can be certain that it wasn't spontaneously generated ... but was a product of intelligent creation.

Delirium · 22-01-2017 08:22PM

J C wrote: »

If there is lfe on any of them then we can be certain that it wasn't spontaneously generated ... but was a product of intelligent creation.

Why is that?

Timberrrrrrrr · 22-01-2017 08:22PM

J C wrote: »

If there is lfe on any of them then we can be certain that it wasn't spontaneously generated ... but was a product of intelligent creation.

How? What if it is a single cell organism how do you "prove" that it was a product of "intelligent creation"?

J C · 22-01-2017 08:33PM

robinph wrote: »

How do you know that our universe is anything special? You've got nothing to compare it with to be able to backup that claim. Even if there was something special about the universe, it still doesn't prove God though. It only proves we can measure stuff and that the thing is that size.

Whether it's unique or not ... the observed fine tuning, complexity, specificity and law-driven nature and functionality of the Universe declares it's source to be something of God-like scale and capacity.

There is not enough matter or time in the Universe to spontaneously produce the correct amino acid sequence for just one 100 chain amino acid protein. Some large proteins have chain lengths of over 1,000 amino acids. If the specific amino acid sequence for a specific small protein cannot be produced spontanelously, then all speculation on the spontaneous generation of life over millions of years is as futile and unreasonable as the now discredited belief in the spontaneous generation of insects which was held to be true up to the 19th century. Ironically, just when Pasteur scientifically proved the Biological Law of Biogenesis i.e. that life is always required to produce new life, Darwin began claiming that life could generate spontaneously ... over millions of years ... rather than the few days, which many people believed up until the great Christian and Creation Scientist , Louis Pasteur, proved to be otherwise!!!

The odds of producing a specific amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a
binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 ... 100 times - which happens to be 1.27 x 10^130. This is a figure so great that the entire matter in the Known Universe couldn't do this over an equally inordinate amount of time ... and we are only talking about one specific protein ... and thousands of specific biomolecules arranged in precise specific ways are required for even a so-called simple cell.
However, even an entity with Human levels of intelligence and design capacity could produce such an amino acid sequence with certainty using minimal matter and time ... such is the importance of applied intelligence to the generation of Complex Specified Functional Systems, such as those observed in life.

Safehands · 22-01-2017 08:43PM

J C wrote: »

There is not enough matter or time in the Universe to spontaneously produce the correct amino acid sequence for just one 100 chain amino acid protein. Some large proteins have chain lengths of over 1,000 amino acids. If the specific amino acid sequence for a small protein cannot be produced spontanelously, then all speculation on the spontaneous generation of life over millions of years is as futile and unreasonable as the now discredited belief in the spontaneous generation of insects which was held to be true up to the 19th century. Ironically, just when Pasteur scientifically proved the Biological Law of Biogenesis i.e. that life is always required to produce new life, Darwin began claiming that life could generate spontaneously ... over millions of years ... rather than the few days, which many people believed up until the great Christian and Creation Scientist , Louis Pasteur, proved to be otherwise!!!

The odds of producing a specific amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a
binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 ... 100 times - which happens to be 1.27 x 10^130. This is a figure so great that the entire matter in the Known Universe couldn't do this over an equally inordinate amount of time ... and we are only talking about one specific protein ... and thousands of biomolecules arranged in precise specific ways are required for even a so-called simple cell.
However, even an entity with Human levels of intelligence and design capacity could produce such an amino acid sequence with certainty using minimal matter and time ... such is the importance of applied intelligence to the generation of Complex Specified Functional Systems, such as those observed in life.

Really?

All that = God did it, it says so in the Bible.

J C · 22-01-2017 09:36PM

Safehands wrote: »

Really?

All that = God did it, it says so in the Bible.

All that = mathematical proof that an intelligent entity/entities of Divine proportions was/were required to create life.

looksee · 22-01-2017 11:51PM

J C wrote: »

... and where is the 'different life' on planets with different specifications to the Earth?
Mars was regarded as such a planet ... but no life (of any type) has been detected there.

You are quite entitled to hold it as a matter of dogmatic faith that there is life elsewhere in the Universe ... but there is no objective evidence for such a belief.

How can you reason with someone who cannot even read a sentence and understand it?

I did not say there was different life on planets with different specifications to earth. It is probably true, if there is other life anywhere, but that is not what I said.

And I have not said, and nor has anyone else on this forum, that I hold it as a matter of dogmatic faith that there is life anywhere else in the universe. I said - as did everyone else - it is a possibility, more of a possibility than that there is not. But I have said nothing dogmatic, and nothing based on faith.

And I think it is likely that most Christians would agree with me.

(before you start again, I have not said that all Christians do agree with me on this topic, I said 'I think it likely that most'. That is not a dogmatic statement.)

J C · 23-01-2017 12:35AM

looksee wrote: »

How can you reason with someone who cannot even read a sentence and understand it?

I did not say there was different life on planets with different specifications to earth. It is probably true, if there is other life anywhere, but that is not what I said.

And I have not said, and nor has anyone else on this forum, that I hold it as a matter of dogmatic faith that there is life anywhere else in the universe. I said - as did everyone else - it is a possibility, more of a possibility than that there is not. But I have said nothing dogmatic, and nothing based on faith.

And I think it is likely that most Christians would agree with me.

(before you start again, I have not said that all Christians do agree with me on this topic, I said 'I think it likely that most'. That is not a dogmatic statement.)

I can't 'make head nor tail' of your post ... or what point you are trying to make!! :eek:

... anyway, the bottom line is that the spontaneous generation of life is just as impossible everywhere else in the Universe ... as it is on Earth ... and therefore, wherever you find life, you can scientifcally and mathematically conclude that an entity/entities of God-like proportions originally generated it.:)

Timberrrrrrrr · 23-01-2017 12:40AM

J C wrote: »

I can't 'make head nor tail' of your post ... or what point you are trying to make!! :eek:

... anyway, the bottom line is that the spontaneous generation of life is just as impossible everywhere else in the Universe ... as it is on Earth ... and therefore, wherever you find life, you can scientifcally and mathematically conclude that an entity/entities of God-like proportions generated it.:)

And yet no one can prove this (beyond reasonable doubt)

hinault · 23-01-2017 12:43AM

Safehands wrote: »

A very intetesting take on the Genesis story.

I don't know about the word light actually meaning Energy. To me, light means light. Energy is actually different. Although light is a form of energy, it is only one form. If that were the only issue, you could make an argument, I suppose. But we also have Day and Night, Morning and Evening and the issue of the vegetation, all occurring before the sun was created. I don't really get the relevence of the capitalisation of Day and Night. I think Genesis was written in Hebrew. Were the words capitalised in Hebrew? I don't know.
All of this just demonstrates that the writers had little knowledge of the science of how things work

Naw.

You look at the chronology of the verses in Genesis chapter 1.
It's clear that the author was privy to how "science" works when you read Chapter 1.

J C · 23-01-2017 12:43AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And yet no one can prove this (beyond reasonable doubt)

As the proof is mathematical ... it can be (and is) proven beyond all doubt.:)

Timberrrrrrrr · 23-01-2017 12:47AM

J C wrote: »

As the proof is mathematical ... it can be (and is) proven beyond all doubt.:)

Prove to me that god exists (beyond all reasonable doubt) and you will convert an atheist.

Safehands · 23-01-2017 12:55AM

J C wrote: »

As the proof is mathematical ... it can be (and is) proven beyond all doubt.:)

I'd love to challenge you on that formula. But you'd love that. For a man who believes that giants once existed and that Noah actually lived for what was it, 900 years? You have some strange ways.
You are hung up on evolution. (It is true, despite your production of "formulae" which "disprove" it). You believe literally, a prehistoric book, written by scientifically ignorant people and you poo poo any modern scientist who puts forward any scientific suggestion that the Universe is Billions of years old.
Sorry JC, no credibility!

J C · 23-01-2017 01:07AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Prove to me that god exists (beyond all reasonable doubt) and you will convert an atheist.

OK ... many Atheists have been converted before ... so here it goes ... proof, beyond all doubt, that God exists.

There is not enough matter or time in the Universe to spontaneously produce the correct amino acid sequence for just one 100 chain amino acid protein. Some large proteins have chain lengths of over 1,000 amino acids. If the specific amino acid sequence for a specific small protein cannot be produced spontanelously, then all speculation on the spontaneous generation of life over millions of years is as futile and unreasonable as the now discredited belief in the spontaneous generation of insects which was held to be true up to the 19th century.
Ironically, just when Pasteur scientifically proved the Biological Law of Biogenesis i.e. that life is always required to produce new life, Darwin began claiming that life could generate spontaneously ... over millions of years ... rather than the few days, which many people believed up until the great Christian and Creation Scientist , Louis Pasteur, proved to be otherwise!!!

The odds of producing a specific amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a
binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 ... 100 times - which happens to be 1.27 x 10^130. This is a figure so great that the entire matter in the Known Universe couldn't do this over an equally inordinate amount of time ... and we are only talking about one specific protein ... and thousands of specific biomolecules arranged in precise specific ways are required for even a so-called simple cell.
However, even an entity with Human levels of intelligence and design capacity could produce a 100 chain amino acid sequence with certainty using minimal matter and time ... such is the importance of applied intelligence to the generation of Complex Specified Functional Systems, such as those observed in life.
The Original Intelligence required to generate life is of Divine proportions ... and therefore logically God has to exist ... because life, as we know it, exists.

Absolam · 23-01-2017 02:02AM

J C wrote: »

The odds of producing a specific amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 ... 100 times - which happens to be 1.27 x 10^130. This is a figure so great that the entire matter in the Known Universe couldn't do this over an equally inordinate amount of time ... and we are only talking about one specific protein ... and thousands of specific biomolecules arranged in precise specific ways are required for even a so-called simple cell.

The very fact that you're quoting odds rather than a mathematical refutation shows that we're talking about a possibility, not an impossibility. Certainly in any specific instance it's highly improbable... but that's definitively not impossible, it just means that any amount of matter in the universe , even when in such a state as to make it inevitable that it will produce the 20 odd amino acids it can produce spontaneously, is at any moment very very very unlikely to combine those amino acids into chains (proteins). It's not impossible, just unlikely. As is every other step along the way to cells and organisms; none are impossible, all are unlikely.

So far we're only theorising as the the mass of the observable universe, we can't even begin to guess at the actual mass of the entire universe, so speculating that unlikely things are impossible because the universe isn't big enough doesn't really wash. When we do know how much matter there is in the universe we'll be able to say just how improbable it really is, but even so it will never have been impossible.

Of course that doesn't obviate any claim that God made the universe exactly so, in order for life to arise in those improbable circumstances in accordance with His plan.

Morbert · 23-01-2017 03:27AM

Absolam wrote: »

The very fact that you're quoting odds rather than a mathematical refutation shows that we're talking about a possibility, not an impossibility. Certainly in any specific instance it's highly improbable... but that's definitively not impossible, it just means that any amount of matter in the universe , even when in such a state as to make it inevitable that it will produce the 20 odd amino acids it can produce spontaneously, is at any moment very very very unlikely to combine those amino acids into chains (proteins). It's not impossible, just unlikely. As is every other step along the way to cells and organisms; none are impossible, all are unlikely.

So far we're only theorising as the the mass of the observable universe, we can't even begin to guess at the actual mass of the entire universe, so speculating that unlikely things are impossible because the universe isn't big enough doesn't really wash. When we do know how much matter there is in the universe we'll be able to say just how improbable it really is, but even so it will never have been impossible.

Of course that doesn't obviate any claim that God made the universe exactly so, in order for life to arise in those improbable circumstances in accordance with His plan.

As an aside: JC's probability calculations are nonsense, and ignore the field of abiogenesis.

Absolam · 23-01-2017 05:15AM

Well, I think the idea is that, statistically, abiogenesis is close to impossible, so much so that your average Sicilian might say the idea of each step lining up to result in what we see today is simply inconceivable. But then, someone else might say million to one chances crop up nine times out of ten. There's a universe of difference between practically no chance, and no chance.

looksee · 23-01-2017 11:45AM

J C wrote: »

I can't 'make head nor tail' of your post ... or what point you are trying to make!! :eek:

Exactly, there is your problem, right there.

Safehands · 23-01-2017 12:26PM

J C wrote: »

century.
Ironically, just when Pasteur scientifically proved the Biological Law of Biogenesis i.e. that life is always required to produce new life, Darwin began claiming that life could generate spontaneously ... over millions of years ... rather than the few days, which many people believed up until the great Christian and Creation Scientist , Louis Pasteur, proved to be otherwise!!!

Forget Darwin, anyone suggesting that the world is millions of years old is just plain wrong. The prehistoric book, written by,......by........unknown prehistoric people, long long ago, suggests that the world is less than ten thousand years old. Just because every real scientist in the world believes that the world is billions of years old, doesn't mean it is so, does it J.C.?

J C · 23-01-2017 07:34PM

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I think the idea is that, statistically, abiogenesis is close to impossible, so much so that your average Sicilian might say the idea of each step lining up to result in what we see today is simply inconceivable. But then, someone else might say million to one chances crop up nine times out of ten. There's a universe of difference between practically no chance, and no chance.

... but the numbers are so massive that it isn't practically no chance ... but absolutely no chance.:)

J C · 23-01-2017 07:36PM

Morbert wrote: »

As an aside: JC's probability calculations are nonsense, and ignore the field of abiogenesis.

... please explain.

J C · 23-01-2017 07:52PM

Absolam wrote: »

The very fact that you're quoting odds rather than a mathematical refutation shows that we're talking about a possibility, not an impossibility. Certainly in any specific instance it's highly improbable... but that's definitively not impossible, it just means that any amount of matter in the universe , even when in such a state as to make it inevitable that it will produce the 20 odd amino acids it can produce spontaneously, is at any moment very very very unlikely to combine those amino acids into chains (proteins). It's not impossible, just unlikely. As is every other step along the way to cells and organisms; none are impossible, all are unlikely.

So far we're only theorising as the the mass of the observable universe, we can't even begin to guess at the actual mass of the entire universe, so speculating that unlikely things are impossible because the universe isn't big enough doesn't really wash. When we do know how much matter there is in the universe we'll be able to say just how improbable it really is, but even so it will never have been impossible.

The problem is that if every electron in the known universe produced a different sequence every nano-second for 15 billion years you would only produce 10^108 permutations ... well short of the 10^130 of permutations required to ensure the production of just one a specific 100 chain protein ... so we can safely conclude beyond all doubt that the production of the thousands of specific biomolecules and their specified arrangements and interactions in time and space required to produce even a so-called simple cell is an impossibility - using non-intelligently directed processes.

hinault · 24-01-2017 01:21AM

Absolam wrote: »

So far we're only theorising as the the mass of the observable universe, we can't even begin to guess at the actual mass of the entire universe, so speculating that unlikely things are impossible because the universe isn't big enough doesn't really wash. When we do know how much matter there is in the universe we'll be able to say just how improbable it really is, but even so it will never have been impossible.

Of course that doesn't obviate any claim that God made the universe exactly so, in order for life to arise in those improbable circumstances in accordance with His plan.

We can take a reasonable guess at the mass of the Universe. And these guesses have been something which Science has attempted a number of times.

But we don't even need to quantify and examine every other single object in the Universe to establish if even one of those objects contain any trace of life.

There are certain basic requirements needed for an object in the Universe to
contain even the most rudimentary form of life. These basic requirements will not be fulfilled by every single object in the Universe (you can see this using the solar system that Earth occupies). So immediately the number of objects in the Universe containing life is far smaller than the total number of objects in the entire Universe.

Morbert · 24-01-2017 02:21AM

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I think the idea is that, statistically, abiogenesis is close to impossible

Yes, and statements like those are nonsense, and ignore the field of abiogenesis. I.e. It's not that J C is correct about the odds, but wrong about the time/chances needed to accommodate those odds. J C is wrong about the odds themselves.

Specifically, J C calculates the odds for a particular amino acid chain forming in a primordial sea of amino acids as prohibitively small: 1 in 1x10^130 per set of reactions. But no scientist engaged in the field of abiogenesis would ever include such a prohibitive mechanism in their model. Instead, scientists look at simpler and simpler chemical subsystems engaged in assembly, and see how they might participate in the emergence of life.

Here is a literature review from 2004 on models and pathways to life.
http://courses.washington.edu/bangblue/Bada-Origin_Of_Life_Review-EPSL04.pdf

Here, scientists investigate the possibility of the simultaneous emergence of cellular subsystems.
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v7/n4/full/nchem.2202.html

Here, scientists investigate a bioenergetic origin for protocells.
http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(12)01438-9.pdf

Here is an article on peptide self-replication (with 32 points on the chain, far less than J C's 100)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.19970030706/abstract

etc. etc.

None of these relevant models or mechanisms rely on inordinately complex amino acid chains emerging by chance.

Absolam · 24-01-2017 02:33AM

J C wrote: »

... but the numbers are so massive that it isn't practically no chance ... but absolutely no chance.:)

Well no... we don't know the absolute limits, do we?

J C wrote: »

The problem is that if every electron in the known universe produced a different sequence every nano-second for 15 billion years you would only produce 10^108 permutations ... well short of the 10^130 of permutations required to ensure the production of just one a specific 100 chain protein ... so we can safely conclude beyond all doubt that the production of the thousands of specific biomolecules and their specified arrangements and interactions in time and space required to produce even a so-called simple cell is an impossibility - using non-intelligently directed processes.

Firstly, sticking to the 'known' universe is rather disingenuous; we don't know how big the universe is, and reactions don't just happen in the bit we're aware of. Your 10^130 could be so meaninglessly tiny compared to the actual potential of the entire universe that it becomes an effective certainty; so it's more than a bit cheeky to claim 'beyond all doubt' or 'impossible' when you just don't know.

Even so, you're saying that 10^130 of permutations are required to ensure the production of just one a specific 100 chain protein, and that's not true, is it? The mind bogglingly overwhelmingly large proportion of those permutations are simply not going to get used. Each permutation (say we're just using the usual amino acids) is a protein; we know there are 20^100 (1.2677E+130) possible proteins with 100 amino acids, but so far we're only aware of about 1.5 million amino acid sequences of proteins altogether, so every single amino chain we are currently aware exists (of every possible length) amounts to less than a billionth of a billionth of one percent (1.18329135783152E-124%) of the possible permutations of just a 100 amino acid protein. The number of proteins required for life as we know it is infinestimably smaller than the potential number of proteins available, and there's no real reason to think that life couldn't exist based on completely different proteins.

J C · 25-01-2017 12:26AM

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, and statements like those are nonsense, and ignore the field of abiogenesis. I.e. It's not that J C is correct about the odds, but wrong about the time/chances needed to accommodate those odds. J C is wrong about the odds themselves.

Specifically, J C calculates the odds for a particular amino acid chain forming in a primordial sea of amino acids as prohibitively small: 1 in 1x10^130 per set of reactions. But no scientist engaged in the field of abiogenesis would ever include such a prohibitive mechanism in their model.

... and for the obvious reason that it mathematically prohibits the non-intelligent production of life as we know it.

Morbert wrote: »

Instead, scientists look at simpler and simpler chemical subsystems engaged in assembly, and see how they might participate in the emergence of life.

Of course they do ... but it is just wishful thinking and denial of the obvious ... that living processes are anything but simple ... and involve combinatorial spaces for even simple biomolecules that would 'swamp' all of the matter and supposed time in the 'Big Bang Universe' ... even to produce just one moderately sized specific protein using any non-intelligently directed process.

Morbert wrote: »

Here is a literature review from 2004 on models and pathways to life.
http://courses.washington.edu/bangblue/Bada-Origin_Of_Life_Review-EPSL04.pdf

Here, scientists investigate the possibility of the simultaneous emergence of cellular subsystems.
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v7/n4/full/nchem.2202.html

Here, scientists investigate a bioenergetic origin for protocells.
http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(12)01438-9.pdf

Here is an article on peptide self-replication (with 32 points on the chain, far less than J C's 100)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.19970030706/abstract

etc. etc.

None of these relevant models or mechanisms rely on inordinately complex amino acid chains emerging by chance.

... and the fact that there are so many models, shows that nobody has identified any spontaneous generator of life that actually works ... which is no surprise because the spontaneous generation of life is impossible.:)

Morbert · 25-01-2017 12:39AM

Many models work, insofar as they are plausible accounts of the emergence of life. The problem is, since it happened a long time ago, determining which model is the most relevant account is hard.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments