1 of 3
1
The Math of God
Posted: 27 October 2009 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2009-10-18

Numerous scientific efforts involving probability theory have revealed that it is extremely improbable that chance could produce even the first complete set of genes and the proteins needed for minimal life. Coppedge found that even after making several concessions to chance the probability of a random sequence yielding just one gene or protein is 10 [to the power] 236. [James F. Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), esp. pp. 230-36.

Calculations by other scientists, even from a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective, similarly reveal that there is only an infinitesimal chance for such a beginning for life. The naturalistic physicist Guye spoke of a probability of 2.02 x 10 [to the power] 231 for chance dissymetry in an extremely simple protein. [Charles-Eugene Guye, reported in Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (New York Longmans, Green and Co , 1947), pp 33-34, as cited by Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 234.]

Salisbury suggested a probability of 10 [to the power] 415 for mutations accounting for a new enzyme. [Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, October 25, 1969, p 234, cf., Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 235.]

Yale biophysicist Morowitz calculated a probability of 1 chance in 10 [to the power] 339,999,866 for the chance formation of the correct bond energies for a minimal cell. [Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (New York Academic Press, 1968), p. 99, cited in Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 235.]

Quastler postulated two extreme limits of the improbability of life occurring by chance. The smaller figure was 1 in 10 [to the power] 255 while the larger extreme was approximately 1 in 10 to the three trillionth power (13 digits). [Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT Yale University Press, 1964).]

Using Guye’s probability figure, even if the possible combinations were produced at the speed of light, it would take 10^243 billions of years to obtain even one protein molecule on earth! [Guye, reported in du Nouy, pp 33-34, and cited by Coppedge, Evolution Possible or Impossible? p. 234.]

Astronomer Hoyle and his colleague Wickramasinghe concluded that there is only one chance in 10 [to the power] 40,000 that even a single enzyme could have evolved by random processes, a figure that is “statistically impossible.” It would require more attempts to form one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars in all the known galaxies. This statistic was not arrived at by guessing but by computations based on the necessary components of enzymes.

Therefore according to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe who were previously non-theists, spontaneous generation is impossible, requiring a miracle. “Because of the impossibility of the chance formation and development of life anywhere in the universe” [Chandra Wickramasinghe’s testimony appears in Norman L Geisler, The Creator in the Courtroom Scopes II (Milford, MI Mott Media, 1982), pp. 148-53.] and since the universe is not eternal, they have abandoned the steady state theory Hoyle helped formulate years ago. [Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York Simon and Shuster, 1981), idem, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, November 12,1981, p. 105.]

Yockey studied the likelihood that naturalistic processes could account for the origin of life, which would involve some form of spontaneous biogenesis. He concentrated on explanations for the existence of information content in living organisms as contained in DNA. [See, for example, Hubert p Yockey, ‘An Application of Information Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 46 (1974) 369-406.]  There is more information in the DNA in one human cell than there is in all the books in the Library of Congress, and that one cell contains far more information than there is human knowledge concerning the entire universe! [Robert Gange, Origins and Destiny (Waco, TX Word Books, 1986), pp. 162-64.] Yockey said, “The ‘warm little pond’ scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported.”

These studies present a formidable roadblock to a rational formulation of a naturalistic theory for the origin of life.

 Signature 

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 04:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-09-29

That’s the funny thing about probability.  It doesn’t tell you what’s impossible unless it’s actually zero.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
Randy - 28 October 2009 04:42 AM

That’s the funny thing about probability.  It doesn’t tell you what’s impossible unless it’s actually zero.

It’s also the funny thing about cherry picking from fifty year old physics papers. One can convince oneself of anything.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  964
Joined  2005-01-14

Amazing how improbable the evolution of life is.  And yet it happened, because the evidence is all around us.  Makes you humbled, doesn’t it?  smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2009-10-18

The latest studies done are are with even smaller odds for spontaneous regeneration. Basically, it’s impossible.

 Signature 

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
Parture - 28 October 2009 03:14 PM

The latest studies done are are with even smaller odds for spontaneous regeneration. Basically, it’s impossible.

Fundamentally, no it’s not. Basically, you’re stretching the truth to maintain some wishful coherency.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2009-10-18
Kaizen - 28 October 2009 03:53 PM

Fundamentally, no it’s not. Basically, you’re stretching the truth to maintain some wishful coherency.

Nothing is stretched to speak of, so fundamentally it is effectively impossible for non-life to produce life based on the calculations and trends in those calculations performed by scientists and mathematicians. If you love evidence you appreciate this.

That’s why I say atheists really don’t care. They will make something up if they have to. It is a heart issue. Atheists want to be eternally separated from God and they will get their wish. You are bad people.

 Signature 

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
Parture - 28 October 2009 04:00 PM
Kaizen - 28 October 2009 03:53 PM

Fundamentally, no it’s not. Basically, you’re stretching the truth to maintain some wishful coherency.

Nothing is stretched to speak of, so fundamentally it is effectively impossible for non-life to produce life based on the calculations and trends in those calculations performed by scientists and mathematicians. If you love evidence you appreciate this.

That’s why I say atheists really don’t care. They will make something up if they have to. It is a heart issue. Atheists want to be eternally separated from God and they will get their wish. You are bad people.

Repeating crap doesn’t make it true. You should consider a course in logic. You’ve proven that you’re not worth to time to respond to. Have fun.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Please don’t feed the troll. He has no idea what he’s writing about. He thinks he can assess the probability of the universe, and he thinks we are all bad people who desire to spend an eternity in hell. He has written that several times. Anyone who is that certain of something that each of us knows from within is not true has some issues to work out. We cannot help him do that, and he isn’t asking us to.

Do not dignify this person with a discussion. His behavior and his absurd opinions do not merit it. His humanity merits our respect, but his opinions and his behavior here do not.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
PLaClair - 28 October 2009 04:53 PM

Please don’t feed the troll. He has no idea what he’s writing about. He thinks he can assess the probability of the universe, and he thinks we are all bad people who desire to spend an eternity in hell. He has written that several times. Anyone who is that certain of something that each of us knows from within is not true has some issues to work out. We cannot help him do that, and he isn’t asking us to.

Do not dignify this person with a discussion. His behavior and his absurd opinions do not merit it. His humanity merits our respect, but his opinions and his behavior here do not.

I’m with you PLaClair. I can’t be bothered with anymore irrationality. I must say, the church has done a fine indoctrination job.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2009-10-18

Please stop trolling this thread. If you don’t have something of substance to offer, then don’t post. Nobody forced you to troll.

We are not interesting your pontification, but respond personally and stop being irrational. Satan is just indoctrinating you into an eternity separated from God.

 Signature 

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 05:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2009-01-24

Parture, every post you make further illustrates how blindly ignorant you are.

Evolution is not impossible. It is not improbable. It is INEVITABLE.

Your little theory relies on one HUGE misunderstanding about evolution through natural selection, and that is the erroneous belief that it is random.

It is not. And it’s a grave mistake to think so. I mean, seriously, the word “selection” is in its name!

There is one part in the evolutionary process that is random for all intents and purposes, and that is the mutation of a gene. What you describe, the random “jump” to a new protein/acid/organism/etc, is called single-step selection and would be the result of a one-off mutation. The single mutation (key word) that would cause any particular animal to suddenly “appear” as a result of single-step selection is extremely improbable, indeed.

However, natural selection doesn’t work this way. Organisms evolve and emerge as a result of cumulative selection. With each new generation, the genes of individual offspring are susceptible to these mutations, and any beneficial or harmful effects they may bring.

It is here that natural selection via cumulative selection occurs. Simply put, the organisms with the most beneficial mutations survive, procreate, and flourish while their less able brethren slowly fade into the fossil record. It’s as simple as that. No “impossible” leaps, no magic, just the phrase “how we survive is what makes us who we are” in the most literal sense.

As for abiogenesis, your outdated references have no weight in light of recent research in the field on amino acid formation and protocell generation at places like Los Alamos and several universities.

 Signature 

“From the faith that you release comes an atheist peace.”
“I’m materialist, I ain’t no deist! It’s there for all to see, so don’t talk of hidden mystery with me.”
“Credulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Parture - 27 October 2009 08:37 PM

These studies present a formidable roadblock to a rational formulation of a naturalistic theory for the origin of life.

This has very very little to do with whether the Old Testament is literally true.  Or the New Testament.
Which Christian doctrines to you personally question?  The Assumption of the Virgin Mary?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2009-10-18
cmbf117 - 28 October 2009 05:14 PM

Parture, every post you make further illustrates how blindly ignorant you are.

Evolution is not impossible. It is not improbable. It is INEVITABLE.

Your very first point sins bearing false witness against Christians. We believe in evolution, not abiogenesis. The Bible says the body was formed from dust (Gen. 2.7). That’s evolution of the body. You’re ignorant of what Christians believe and blind to reality.

Your little theory relies on one HUGE misunderstanding about evolution through natural selection, and that is the erroneous belief that it is random.

I don’t believe in randomness. I believe everything has a cause in nature. So it is not nature. Why is it that all your arguments require you to sin bearing false witness? Don’t be such a zombie.

There is one part in the evolutionary process that is random for all intents and purposes, and that is the mutation of a gene. What you describe, the random “jump” to a new protein/acid/organism/etc, is called single-step selection and would be the result of a one-off mutation. The single mutation (key word) that would cause any particular animal to suddenly “appear” as a result of single-step selection is extremely improbable, indeed.

That which has no consciousness can’t produce that which does. It’s a stupid way to reject God.

As for abiogenesis, your outdated references have no weight in light of recent research in the field on amino acid formation and protocell generation at places like Los Alamos and several universities.

Scientists today say the math works out even less in favor. Basically it is impossible for abiogenesis to occur. Non-life can’t produce life. It needs the hand of God to make conscious and give conscience. Even if man could creat replicating life, it would still require God because God gave us the intelligence to do it when nature couldn’t on its own. And even if nature could do it on its own it still requires the hand of God because nature couldn’t have come into existence on its own nor always have been existing.

You lose at each step of the way

 Signature 

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 05:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2009-10-18
Jackson - 28 October 2009 05:28 PM

This has very very little to do with whether the Old Testament is literally true.  Or the New Testament.
Which Christian doctrines to you personally question?  The Assumption of the Virgin Mary?

That’s the Roman Church. They are not Christians.

Since you can’t find a naturalistic explanation for multiple eyewitness testimony in various group settings, you are admitting Jesus is God.

 Signature 

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2009 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2009-01-24
Parture - 28 October 2009 05:49 PM

Your very first point sins bearing false witness against Christians. We believe in evolution, not abiogenesis. The Bible says the body was formed from dust (Gen. 2.7). That’s evolution of the body. You’re ignorant of what Christians believe and blind to reality.

All of a sudden, fundie evangelicals “believe” (wrong word here) in evolution? Tell that to Kirk Cameron, I’m sure he’d love to show you his crocoduck. As for your dust comment, if you can’t see how absolutely insane that sounds, you’re too far off the deep end for anyone to help; not to mention the fact that bible references are not proof of anything. And if anyone’s blind to reality it’s you. It’s called “blind faith” for a reason.

I don’t believe in randomness. I believe everything has a cause in nature. So it is not nature. Why is it that all your arguments require you to sin bearing false witness? Don’t be such a zombie.

Me a zombie? This coming from the guy who felt comfortable enough to say “we believe in evolution,” rather than “I,” as if he speaks for the rest of his kind. Oh, the irony is so great it hurts.

What’s with you having to “believe” everything for it to be real? Can you “believe” something into or out of existance? If so, I have an ex I wouldn’t mind you “un-believing” for me.

There are many examples of randomness in the natural world, one of the most prominent being the spontaneous loss of energy of an atom during radioactive decay.

That which has no consciousness can’t produce that which does. It’s a stupid way to reject God.

How does this have anything to do with the quote block it was under? And since when do baseless assertions like this mean anything? And how do you reject something that doesn’t exist in the first place?

Scientists today say the math works out even less in favor. Basically it is impossible for abiogenesis to occur. Non-life can’t produce life. It needs the hand of God to make conscious and give conscience. Even if man could creat replicating life, it would still require God because God gave us the intelligence to do it when nature couldn’t on its own. And even if nature could do it on its own it still requires the hand of God because nature couldn’t have come into existence on its own nor always have been existing.

You constantly say things like “scientists today say” and “scholars think” without ever citing anything. Where do they say these ridiculous things? Who are they?

 Signature 

“From the faith that you release comes an atheist peace.”
“I’m materialist, I ain’t no deist! It’s there for all to see, so don’t talk of hidden mystery with me.”
“Credulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men.”

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1