The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Delirium · 20-03-2014 09:06PM

how exactly did you arrive the results you posted?

tommy2bad · 20-03-2014 10:15PM

.....the probability of non-intelligently directed systems producing the specific amino acid sequence for a specific functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids is 10^130 to one against it occurring...and this is a number vastly greater than the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe (10^82)!!!!

Hmmm, not sure if you understand this or if I don't understand it but the number of electrons is not the same as the number of possible combination of electrons.
Are you sure this claim is anything more than an effort to blind with science?

J C · 20-03-2014 10:43PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmm, not sure if you understand this or if I don't understand it but the number of electrons is not the same as the number of possible combination of electrons.
Are you sure this claim is anything more than an effort to blind with science?

I was using the number of electrons in the Universe to illustrate the impossibly large odds against the spontaneous formation of a specific functional protein ... and thousands of specific functional biomolecules are required to be assembled in exact sequences to produced even a so-called 'simple cell'.
Some people have argued that we have 15 billion years as well to achieve this feat ... but I estimate the number of possible attempts if every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 15 billion years would still only be 10^109 attempts ... which is still far short of the 10^130 odds against the production of a specific the specific amino acid sequence for just one specific functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids long.

Of course each electron cannot produce an amino acid sequence ... I was just using the number of electrons as an absolute upper limit ... but the practical limit is obviously much lower.

Quite frankly, when I first discovered these figures I was shocked ... that even a small specific biomolecule is a total impossibility to construct spontaneously.
I was an Evolutionist at the time ... and I just couldn't believe my eyes ... and the spreadsheet.

I checked and re-checked the logic and the maths ... I asked collegues to check and re-check the logic and the maths ... and try as I might I couldn't find any flaw.

Delirium · 20-03-2014 10:59PM

according to current scientific understanding, it took 9 billion years post-Big Bang for the planets of the solar system to form. How do you account for this oversight in your calculations?

J C · 21-03-2014 12:08AM

SW wrote: »

according to current scientific understanding, it took 9 billion years post-Big Bang for the planets of the solar system to form. How do you account for this oversight in your calculations?

Whether you use 6 or 15 billion years it has no practical effect on the maths ... I used 15 billion years, again as an upper limit.

To be precise:-

If every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 15 billion years it would still only allow 1.03 x 10^109 attempts ...
... and if every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 6 billion years (that the planets are supposed to be around for, using Big Bang assumptions) it would only allow 4.18 X 10^108 attempts.

... they are both substantially less then the 10^130 odds against producing just one specific functional amino acid sequence spontaneously.

Andrewf20 · 21-03-2014 03:07AM

J C wrote: »

The heart ruling the head is a Human failing ... that can potentially affect anybody with any worldview. Its known as bias and Evolutionists are just as likely to be biased in favour of their worldview as Creationists.

After reading "A righteous mind - why good people are divided by politics & religion" by Jonathan Haidt I agree with what you say above. I think all humans are biased by the heart when it comes to these kinds of arguments (creationism, homosexuality etc).

In his book he compares the head / heart relationship to an elephant rider (head) on top of an elephant (heart). The rider (head) does influence the direction of movement but ultimately its the heart (elephant) thats really in control.

He suggests that people are born with a basic moral framework who's shape gets moulded by growing up in their environment / society. In other words, for example, we are born with an inclination or bias towards being athiest / thiest or conversative / liberal etc that may get fine tuned as we grow up. Whats your thoughts on this?

Also, if it is a human "failing", how much of that failure lies with the individual vs society in your opinion? How much of a roll do parents and others have in moulding this bias?

Safehands · 21-03-2014 10:52AM

J C wrote: »

If every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 15 billion years it would still only allow 1.03 x 10^109 attempts ...
... and if every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 6 billion years (that the planets are supposed to be around for, using Big Bang assumptions) it would only allow 4.18 X 10^108 attempts.

When are you going to start with your evidence JC? I'm ready to listen to your side of the story.

bumper234 · 21-03-2014 11:02AM

J C wrote: »

I was using the number of electrons in the Universe to illustrate the impossibly large odds against the spontaneous formation of a specific functional protein ... and thousands of specific functional biomolecules are required to be assembled in exact sequences to produced even a so-called 'simple cell'.
Some people have argued that we have 15 billion years as well to achieve this feat ... but I estimate the number of possible attempts if every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 15 billion years would still only be 10^109 attempts ... which is still far short of the 10^130 odds against the production of a specific the specific amino acid sequence for just one specific functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids long.

Of course each electron cannot produce an amino acid sequence ... I was just using the number of electrons as an absolute upper limit ... but the practical limit is obviously much lower.

Quite frankly, when I first discovered these figures I was shocked ... that even a small specific biomolecule is a total impossibility to construct spontaneously.
I was an Evolutionist at the time ... and I just couldn't believe my eyes ... and the spreadsheet.

So no solid evidence so far then? :rolleyes:

Safehands · 21-03-2014 11:54AM

bumper234 wrote: »

So no solid evidence so far then? :rolleyes:

You see,what JC is doing is presenting arguments against evolution all the time. He is not presenting us with his evidence for ID, which is another way of saying that the biblical story is right. He thinks that God suddenly said "I think I'll create a giraffe" and, hey presto, a giraffe appeared. The same for all the creatures. The ONLY evidence for this is the old testament, which even JC agrees, is a fairytale.

I think he is just trolling for a reaction to his posts.

bumper234 · 21-03-2014 11:57AM

Safehands wrote: »

You see,what JC is doing is presenting arguments against evolution all the time. He is not presenting us with his evidence for ID, which is another way of saying that the biblical story is right. He thinks that God suddenly said "I think I'll create a giraffe" and, hey presto, a giraffe appeared. The same for all the creatures. The ONLY evidence for this is the old testament, which even JC agrees, is a fairytale.

I think he is just trolling for a reaction to his posts.

He will also in one post claim that the universe was created 10,000 years ago but then in the next post will talk about things being 15 BILLION years old!!!

Delirium · 21-03-2014 12:12PM

J C wrote: »

Whether you use 6 or 15 billion years it has no practical effect on the maths ... I used 15 billion years, again as an upper limit.

To be precise:-

If every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 15 billion years it would still only allow 1.03 x 10^109 attempts ...
... and if every Electron in the Universe produced a random 100 amino acid sequence every nano-second for 6 billion years (that the planets are supposed to be around for, using Big Bang assumptions) it would only allow 4.18 X 10^108 attempts.

... they are both substantially less then the 10^130 odds against producing just one specific functional amino acid sequence spontaneously.

So you're not saying that the Big Bang generating the planets and stars in mathmatically improbable, just biological lifeforms?

Safehands · 21-03-2014 12:18PM

SW wrote: »

So you're not saying that the Big Bang generating the planets and stars in mathmatically improbable, just biological lifeforms?

Lads, I think we are feeding him. He has no evidence 'cause there is no evidence. He had his chance, but he keeps trolling. Sad really!

Brian Shanahan · 21-03-2014 07:46PM

Safehands wrote: »

Lads, I think we are feeding him. He has no evidence 'cause there is no evidence. He had his chance, but he keeps trolling. Sad really!

I honestly don't think he is trolling. To troll one must know that the position you hold is wrong, and act according to that knowledge. JC hasn't shown anything to indicate other than he's deluded (either by himself or by others) into thinking that a fantasy is reality, and shapes his whole worldview according to the precepts of said fantasy.

J C · 21-03-2014 09:37PM

Andrewf20 wrote: »

After reading "A righteous mind - why good people are divided by politics & religion" by Jonathan Haidt I agree with what you say above. I think all humans are biased by the heart when it comes to these kinds of arguments (creationism, homosexuality etc).

In his book he compares the head / heart relationship to an elephant rider (head) on top of an elephant (heart). The rider (head) does influence the direction of movement but ultimately its the heart (elephant) thats really in control.

He suggests that people are born with a basic moral framework who's shape gets moulded by growing up in their environment / society. In other words, for example, we are born with an inclination or bias towards being athiest / thiest or conversative / liberal etc that may get fine tuned as we grow up. Whats your thoughts on this?

What you say is very true ... the heart often rules the head ... and this leads to bias.

Bias is a risk in all kinds of situations ... it can obviously be found in emotionally charged situations ... but it can also be found in apparently 'cold' and 'rational' situations ... and that is why, for example, a Judge cannot hear a case in which s/he or anybody they have a personal linkage to is an appellant.

Bias can also be an issue in regard to issues that impact on a person's worldview ... and its just as big a risk for an Evolutionist, when faced with evidence against Evolution as it is with a Creationist who is faced with evidence against Creation.

When a challenge is made to something that is believed in by the heart (as distinct from the head) the result is often an emotionally charged outburst ... such as name calling, ad hominisms and in some case just an outright denial and refusal to listen to any criticism of the worldview.
This is a common reaction amongst Theists ... but it is also a common reaction amongst Atheists as well.

When a challenge is made to something believed in by the head ... the reaction is usually measured and logical ... with a focus on the challenge and the evidence for and against the challenge.

When you see emotions running high ... you can be pretty certain that whatever is at issue, is believed in by the heart ... rather than the head.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Also, if it is a human "failing", how much of that failure lies with the individual vs society in your opinion? How much of a roll do parents and others have in moulding this bias?

This is another version of the old 'nature versus nurture' question ... and the answer is that it's probably a combination of factors ... parents certainly have influence ... but, in some situations children can reject what their parents say, simply because the parents say it, such is their need to rebel against what their parents believe. Society, in all its manifestations undoubtedly also has an influence. If somebody has taken a public stance on something, their pride will make them very reluctant to change their stance, even in the fact of overwhelming evidence ... and the perceived 'conventional wisdom' on a subject also has a considerable effect on stopping people even considering ideas beyond the 'status-quo'.

J C · 21-03-2014 09:42PM

Safehands wrote: »

When are you going to start with your evidence JC? I'm ready to listen to your side of the story.

Thanks ... and I want to listen to your ideas as well.

Do you have any questions/comments in relation to either the logic of my argument or the maths?

J C · 22-03-2014 01:02AM

bumper234 wrote: »

So no solid evidence so far then? :rolleyes:

I see you are focussing on my use of the word 'estimate' (with its implication of 'approximation' or 'guesswork') ... on reflection, a more accurate word for what I wished to say, would have been 'calculation'.

... and my calculation is solidly based on physically observable facts.

J C · 22-03-2014 01:05AM

bumper234 wrote: »

He will also in one post claim that the universe was created 10,000 years ago but then in the next post will talk about things being 15 BILLION years old!!!

I was using the 15 Billion years figure to incorporate Big Bang/conventional science ages into the calculation ... in order to eliminate the 'long ages' argument that what couldn't happen in 10,000 years, could possibly happen in 15 Billion years.

J C · 22-03-2014 01:09AM

SW wrote: »

So you're not saying that the Big Bang generating the planets and stars in mathmatically improbable, just biological lifeforms?

You're correct that I'm not saying anything about the probability of the Big Bang generating planets and stars, because I cannot think of a mathematical test to evaluate this, one way or the other.

The specific sequences observed in specific functional biomolecules lend themselves to mathematical evaluation ... and that is what I have done.

J C · 22-03-2014 01:18AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I honestly don't think he is trolling. To troll one must know that the position you hold is wrong, and act according to that knowledge. JC hasn't shown anything to indicate other than he's deluded (either by himself or by others) into thinking that a fantasy is reality, and shapes his whole worldview according to the precepts of said fantasy.

I don't think I'm deluded ... but then most people, including many deluded people think that they're not deluded.
... so I'm prepared to listen to reasons why you think I'm deluded.
Specifically, could you confine yourself to telling me where I'm wrong/deluded in the figures and the logic of my proof for the Intelligent Design of life.

... we can examine any other issues that you may like to discuss later, if that is OK with you.

Safehands · 23-03-2014 10:05PM

J C wrote: »

Thanks ... and I want to listen to your ideas as well.
Do you have any questions/comments in relation to either the logic of my argument or the maths?

Yes, what is the source of these maths figures?
None of what you said is evidence for ID. They are just random maths equations. Retrospective probability is proof of nothing.
JC, take the bible out of the equation for a minute. Pretend it never existed. Now, tell me why you would be looking for intelligent design. No evidence points to God creating everything. Show me the evidence which points to God creating it all rather than trying to convince me that evolution is incorrect. We all know you view on that, show us the proof to convince us that God created the world.

bumper234 · 24-03-2014 10:29PM

J C wrote: »

I don't think I'm deluded ... but then most people, including many deluded people think that they're not deluded.
... so I'm prepared to listen to reasons why you think I'm deluded.
Specifically, could you confine yourself to telling me where I'm wrong/deluded in the figures and the logic of my proof for the Intelligent Design of life.

... we can examine any other issues that you may like to discuss later, if that is OK with you.

Just watched episode 2 of cosmos, makes me smile to then come in here and read JC's ramblings

meeshak · 25-03-2014 12:41PM

Young earth creationists are skeptical of dating methods which estimate the earth to be 4.54 billion years old.

For example, Jonathan Sarfati says about radiometric dating

"It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily."

Sarfati also indicates that 90% of dating methods show a young earth: http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

Radiometric dating came out in 1905. In 1905, how old did the mainstream scientific community say the earth is? Can anyone recommend a history of science book/work which cites the various estimates of the age of the earth that scientists commonly gave in the 1800s and in the 1900s?

Professor Plaisted offers a common sense solution to testing the reliability of the various dating of the earth estimates:

"It would really be nice if geologists would just do a double blind study sometime to find out what the distributions of the ages are. In practice, geologists carefully select what rocks they will date, and have many explanations for discordant dates, so it's not clear how such a study could be done, but it might be a good project for creationists. There is also evidence that many anomalies are never reported."

Has a rigorous double blind study been done on old earth dating methods in order to determine their reliability?

Brian Shanahan · 25-03-2014 06:18PM

meeshak wrote: »

Has a rigorous double blind study been done on old earth dating methods in order to determine their reliability?

Yes, read the thread.

Oh, and Safariti is lying to you.

PopePalpatine · 25-03-2014 06:35PM

meeshak wrote: »

Radiometric dating came out in 1905. In 1905, how old did the mainstream scientific community say the earth is? Can anyone recommend a history of science book/work which cites the various estimates of the age of the earth that scientists commonly gave in the 1800s and in the 1900s?

In 1905, we didn't know that electrons orbit atomic nuclei. We didn't know the equation E=m(c^2).

You speak of the correction of mistakes by previous scientists as a bad thing. I see it as as a refinement.

Safehands · 26-03-2014 12:25AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes, read the thread.

Oh, and Safariti is lying to you.

Every reputable astronomer, geologist, Paleontologist, university professor, biologist and scientist accept that the universe (and the Earth) is billions of years old. People who take the bible literally think it is about 10,000 years old, without any evidence to support their beliefs. The Bible cannot be taken literally. It teaches, for example, that it is right to kill people by bashing their brains in with rocks, for relatively minor offences, like not being a virgin when they get married. This is not the right thing to do, therefore it can be demonstrated that the bible is at best, sometimes not correct or right, therefore it should not be taken literally, therefore anything it says needs to be interpreted and put into the context of the time and the people it was written for. These people were extremely poorly educated by today's standards and knew nothing of the realities we take for granted today, like the world being billions of years old.

Safehands · 26-03-2014 12:28AM

meeshak wrote: »

Has a rigorous double blind study been done on old earth dating methods in order to determine their reliability?

Has such a study ever been done to test the authenticity of the biblical account of creation?

tommy2bad · 26-03-2014 01:20AM

Safehands wrote: »

Every reputable astronomer, geologist, Paleontologist, university professor, biologist and scientist accept that the universe (and the Earth) is billions of years old. People who take the bible literally think it is about 10,000 years old, without any evidence to support their beliefs. The Bible cannot be taken literally. It teaches, for example, that it is right to kill people by bashing their brains in with rocks, for relatively minor offences, like not being a virgin when they get married. This is not the right thing to do, therefore it can be demonstrated that the bible is at best, sometimes not correct or right, therefore it should not be taken literally, therefore anything it says needs to be interpreted and put into the context of the time and the people it was written for. These people were extremely poorly educated by today's standards and knew nothing of the realities we take for granted today, like the world being billions of years old.

Fail!
I wish people would stop with this kind of ill informed nonsense, it's every bit as bad as JC rambling distortions of science.

Safehands · 26-03-2014 10:34AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Fail!
I wish people would stop with this kind of ill informed nonsense, it's every bit as bad as JC rambling distortions of science.

How exactly, is it ill informed nonsense?

tommy2bad · 26-03-2014 12:44PM

Safehands wrote: »

How exactly, is it ill informed nonsense?

Because like JC you are using the bible literally and as if it was a hand book for life, it's not, it never was, because its a cannon of 70 something books that all tell a different story, address different issues and are nothing more than a record of a people. It's value isn't in what it tells you to do, it's value is in what it tell you people did and thought and how they understood the world. If you don't believe in god then it's still a valuable set of documents and if you do then it's value is imminence in understanding how man relates to god and how god relates to man.

Honestly both of ye are biblical literalists and both of ye are wrong.

Brian Shanahan · 26-03-2014 12:52PM

Safehands wrote: »

How exactly, is it ill informed nonsense?

I think it goes, "something, something, catholic philosopher I agree with said that because the church no longer teaches some of the stuff in the old testament that it is no longer valid, despite us teaching all the stuff situated either side of it*, and even though there is no new testament or gospel repudiation of the old testament stricture^, something, something."

*All the stuff either side of the abominating of the gay is an example here, who has heard of a priest giving out about clothes of mixed fabrics or tattoos as a biblically inspired abomination.

^ A careful reading of the bible shows that, in fact, there was very little of the old testament supposedly thrown out by Jesus and his apostles. I say supposedly because what we have in the bible is mostly a 4th c. rewrite by a number of church leaders interested in distancing themselves from judaism, and even then they only did the minimum necessary in their rewrites to dissasociate themselves from the most obviously jewish practises.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments