What Have Creationists Said That's True? (ritual, Creator, Darwin, mystic)

[Somkid]

"I believe" in their mind that is true they do believe.

[WhiteSeal]

This is definitely a hot topic, especially for creationists. I do see where they're coming from really, but the math is generally against them. Most creationists will argue that it is mathematically impossible that the amino acids made the chains and the deoxyribonucleic acids formed in the primordial pool all on their own. You see, they kind of...did. Even if God did it, that means it happened.
creationism vs spontaneous development
Asimov (yes, he wrote science fiction), wrote a great book about this where he proved that life could have spontaneously occurred and it probably has, many times (he did it to prove there were aliens).


Well, evolution is true, that's pretty much unarguable (with logic), unless you assume that the carbon dating on the fossils doesn't work/is inaccurate/whatever else is wrong with it.

Evolution being right means life started with something very....basic. A pitiful one celled piece of primordial crap that could barely sustain its own existence and whose entire "life" was comprised of floating started the chain. Saying God made that thing is almost an insult. Saying God played a hand in helping that thing evolve from here to now is the part that would make even the all-powerful blush in achievement.

You can't say everything was evolution. That's just ridiculous. Why 5 fingers instead of 4, 32 teeth instead of 34 (<that number is wrong). To these illogical changes in life that caused everything to advance from pitiful amoeba to Bengal Tiger, you can say one of two things:
1) Mathematical chance made it happen
2) God did it.
Evolution vs intelligent design.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Hela

...Now mother nature has decided she only likes’ left handed’ amino acids. But there is no logical / blind/ random/ Darwinian reason that she should. Still she DOES

Yossarian:

Ah,so because you can't think of a reason, its just random?
And now we get to assign a generic 50-50 chance to it?
How delightfully FALLACIOUS.

What nonsense. First off , its the Darwinian hypothesis which depends on randomness/blind evolution for Abiogenesis . So take umbrage with Charles D et al. for that ....not me... I believe in an Intelligent / purposeful evolution underpinned by the Creator. Indeed this is the only scenario which makes sense. Don't take my word for this, Paraphrasing MIT Mathematician Murray Eden ( from the aforemention 1966 Wistar Symposium ) :

' life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.'

Sorry I got side tracked...where were we ? Ah yes... Left handed vs. right handed A.A.’s eh ? Well as it happens, these are essentially mirror images of one another. BOTH ARE EQUALLY , probable if assembled purely by chance , which would lead to a .5 probability if randomly produced in a Darwinian World ( since they come in only 2 varieties ) Predictably , Amino Acids when artificially synthesized by man, are ‘ right handed ' HALF THE TIME. So Why would Amino Acids if spontaneously generated in primordial soup be any different ? Let's hear ur counter arguments smart guy ?
And While ur at it , riddle me this ? Why's Theres a TOTAL left handed AA bias in Nature? seems pretty strange in a spontaneously driven Darwinian set-up huh ?
Yossarian:

... Don't try to BS a statistician on probability. Just a rule of thumb.How would a single right hand molecule mess anything up at all?

I’m not BS-ing on anything and frankly, I resent the crass insinuation...A single ‘ right handed’ protein would indeed MESS THINGS UP 1/ because mother nature NEVER uses them 2/ Because a single right handed amino acid would impact the proteins shape/ precise folding characteristics, and IN NATURE SHAPE IS CRITICAL TO A PROTEIN, ALL PROTEINS, FUNCTION ![/quote]

Yossarian:

Where to begin.
The errornous assumptions?
The lack of REALISM?

Right like Darwinism provides any more REALISTIC SCENARIO’S ?

Y

How can ( u ) ignore the mass formations of the molecules?

I did NOT ignore the need for abundant amino acids in the primordial soup, of all 20 left handed types, and in close proximity. I alluded to the fact that this absurd scenario, though necessary to support Darwinian Abiogenesis ( at a bare minimum ) Nevertheless... remains a total non-starter IMO.

As even the Miller experiment revealed , AA's are anything but easy to ' create' . And let's recall thatMiller ‘ cheated’/ employed a ‘ cold trap’ just to obtain a couple varieties of AA's . Most experts now concede that :1/ The Miller experiment was fatally flawed, and did not accurately reflect conditions on the primordial earth. 2/ Modern revamping of the Miller experiment, based on ‘ ostensibly ‘ more accurate mimicking of primordial conditions, yielded NO Amino Acids! 3/ Complex biomolecules , inclusive of amino acids ( again experts are now nearly unanimous about this ) would tend to be destroyed at a much faster rate than they could be spontaneously generated, under the turbulent pre-biotic conditions of a young earth.

***
Small matter .. let's assume by some collossal leap of faith that all 20 organic AA's varieties were available in abudance + in the same proximity in the primordial soup - that still doesn't help us much . Because again we've got to choose all ' left handed' molecules and further, we got to get all 20 in just the right sequence, 200 times over ! Which ought to happen, once...roundabout the 12'th of NEVER !

Small matter times two... for suppose even all this was magically overcome. .
How could this ( pseudo supernatural ) protein get reproduced ? And How pray tell could it remain stable , outside the confines of a living cell/ organism ? Again given the turbulent conditions of the primordial earth ? This is Just More absurdum built on absurdum, ad infinitum im my books.

Y :

How can you calculate the probability for ( amino acid ) formation anyways?

I don’t assign any probabilities for spontaneous AA formation . Why should I ? I think this is all but IMPOSSIBLE ! It follows, that generating AA’s in any reasonable concentrations in the primordial soup would be incalculably even more problematic ... In other words, impossible times impossible ad nauseam ( since AA's even if magically produced, presumably couldn't survive that primordial environment in large concentrations ) But small matter, like I said before, cuz even if we get to this point, that still doesn't help us make the leap all the way to a viable protein

Y:

How can you assume that an amino acid disappears the very second it can't connect?

I never assumed any such thing , ( although again most experts feel AA couldn't survive long under prebiotic conditions, if indeed they could even be randomly generated ) But I digress/ am repeating myself...I merely alluded to the fact that as soon as the WRONG AA connects we've got major problems/ a wortheless chain :
In nature, proteins can NOT be assembled from AA's any old which way. They’re ultra-precise in their chemical compositions, and hence their final 3-D shape. They MUST be, since they function rather like a molecular lock or key, which must in turn be married to other protein molecules, ezymes etc , in order to accomplish all manner of crucial biological functions...What happens when even a single AA mistake is made ? Usually this spells disaster !

...Here's a real life illustration of this principle as cited by a scientist named George Wald, whose studied a crucial oxygen carrying protein known as hemoglobin extensively ( I'm paraphrasing ):

if just ONE mutational change of any kind is made, the hemoglobin doesn't function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

The holes in your 'calculation' (although calling it such insults the term) are many.

Tut Tut ...the same could be said of the entire Darwinian paradigm in SPADES . But kindly provide us mere mortals ...with a better calculation for odds of a spontaneous protein synthesis... I wont hold my breath !

To reiterate : " The Odds for selecting exclusively left handed AA's at random , from spontaneously generated AA's ( which science predicts would be half ' right handed ) are indeed ( .5 ) ...There are indeed ' TWENTY' left handed' AA's utlized by nature, and a protein 200 AA's long, to be viable, may indeed depend on all 200 AA's being in the correct sequence ( not to mention the need for them to be folded correctly ! ) So it IS quite reasonable to say that in a prebiotic Darwinian world , we've got to overcome odds of (.5 ) to the exponent 200, times ( .05 ) to the exponent 200, to achieve this...AT A BARE MINIMUM !

But of course, I only provided a minimal probablistic analysis ( to satisfy some smug Darwinist/materialist who told me to put up ' Or Shut the Hell Up ! ' )
Obviously , this is just ball park ,since it doesn't even begin to represent the immense mountain of problems Darwinism faces. Becaause 1) We cannot envision a scenario where we would have all 20 ' L-Handed' AA's in the prebiotic environment ( short of divine intervention ) in abundance 2/ We can't imagine a scenario either where all of the neccessary AA's could spontaneously assemble themselves into gigantic chains ?...remember in Nature cell organelles known as ribosomes are needed for this, but these obviously would NOT be present in the prebiotic environment 3/ Anyway...How would this magic protein, even if produced, get replicated without DNA? RNA? the aforementioned Ribosomes? ...etc etc...It would just quickly get consumed by the turbulent prebiotic soup...END OF STORY

Find me a single scientist Yossarian...with ' CLUE ONE' as to how a protein could be spontaneously made in the prebiotic soup ? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT Kemosabey !

Y:

Go on and cite the calculation with mathematicions have done. If its so obvious, it should be easy to show it

I NEVER said any of this was OBVIOUS OR EASY. I simply provided quotes made by renown mathematicians , at Wistar , circa 1966...( also citing their own scientific papers ) which basically trash Darwinist scenarios for Abiogenesis....

Sorry, I don’t have a copy, of said papers . But I did give the particulars for finding one of them ( See : Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 21 )

Why not obtain a copy of this paper yourself? and post it here if u can ? along with those papers from those other anti-Darwinist mathematicians at Wistar ...Since u seem so consumed with probability arguments ? I’d LOVE a chance to read it / them ...& then debate u or anyone else on their conclusions which overwhelmingly support The Intelligent Design hypotheses !

Y :

Please..... stop.

Whats the matter ? Is No one ever suppose to disagree with Darwinist/ Materialist positions/ challenge their oh so precious/ yet strangely enough, severely threatened paradigms ?

*********
Nuff Said ... time for a Beer...CHEERS ET AL
__________
PS MODS/ADMINS : WHY CAN I NO LONGER EDIT MY POSTS ???

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

And While ur at it , riddle me this ? Why's Theres a TOTAL left handed AA bias in Nature? seems pretty strange in a spontaneously driven Darwinian set-up huh ?

While no one knows exactly why all life on Earth has a left handed AA bias, it's not hard to imagine that the particular "soup" in which the first living organism arose in had a left handed bias. In fact, wouldn't the left handed AA bias be another piece of evidence for an evolutionary common ancestor?

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

Maybe if you ( HELA ) understood anything about natural selection you would realize that it never starts all over

Really ? what's death/ extinction then ?

How long do you think it would take to correctly spell out the phrase if we got to keep all of the letters that appear in the correct place? I'm guessing not very long.

How would u know when the letters were in the correct place Kemosabey ? Darwinism is supposed to work blindly/ be underpinned by RANDOM mutations...the scenario ur suggesting would require an INTELLIGENT Analysis...As it happens , I do believe in Intelligent-Evolution...Darwinists DO NOT, their dubious hypothesis depends on Un-intelligent evolution...which makes it a MYTH, in my books...based not only on logical/ mathematical/probabilistic analysis...

But likewise based on the sudden appearance of novel species / lack of transitional creatures in the fossil record ...And more

Everywhere the heavens and terrestrial nature shows signs of an INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...not a blind/ gradualistic/ Darwinian one

Darwinism is NOT science, but a fable IMO !

***


BTW ( Caminintx ) it is YOU who fail to understand the precept of Natural selection. First one has to have something useful to select ( which presumably would require quite a bit of random genetic tinkering/ mutations first..

again ...

the mystery is not The SURVIVAL but rather the ARRIVAL of the fittest.

Starting all over, once a spelling mistake is made in the phrase ( Darwinism_is_impossible ! ) ln my analogy...IS roughly akin to the death of the individual , or its failure to reproduce , due to genetic sequencing/ C-A-T-G spelling errors ....resulting in the unique mix of genes possessed by the organism to be scrapped/ again much like throwing the scrabble letters back into the hat

Most assuredly , the vast majority of genetic errors ( if randomly driven ) would be harmful , or at best neutral...BUT almost never beneficial ....So how could we envision thousands of unlikely beneficial genetic errors in quick succession, and in the same vicinity of DNA ? Contemplating even a single useful / novel gene from this Darwinian scenario ( just like managing to blindly spell ' Darwinism_is_impossible.') is pure fantasy !!!


Here’s a quote from another thread of mine which better illuminates the sheer intractability of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm...

( Darwinian evolution ) seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent."

[Reference : Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 21]

****

BTW what about the argument that DNA is an informational code/ symbolic language ?...and my contentions ( shared by many other ID'ers ) that all such codes denote an underlying/ creative/ purposeful intelligence ...

Outside of DNA ( which again I find akin to a communication straight from the mind of the Creator ! ) provide me with one example of a comparable code not made by an intelligent mind/ minds ?

Ah let me guess...No smug responses from the Darwinist/ Materialist crowd ...scratch that I'm sure the condescending insults WILL FLY

Some of u staunch defenders of outmoded Materialism/ Darwin dogma...remind me so-oooo much of religious fundamentalists it's not even funny...Scratch that...

IT’S HILARIOUS !

CHEERS ET AL

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by WhiteSeal

You can't say everything was evolution. That's just ridiculous. Why 5 fingers instead of 4, 32 teeth instead of 34 (<that number is wrong).

Um, I actually originally had 32 teeth - not including my wisdom teeth - which makes for a grand total of 36 all up. Probably why they pulled 4 of them out before they shoved my braces on. I also never had any upper incisors. Occasionally things screw up. If things were set in stone by some intelligent outside force, why would that happen?

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Camanintx :

Really ? what's death/ extinction then ?



How would u know when the letters were in the correct place Kemosabey ? Darwinism is supposed to work blindly/ be underpinned by RANDOM mutations...the scenario ur suggesting would require an INTELLIGENT Analysis...As it happens , I do believe in Intelligent-Evolution...Darwinists DO NOT, their dubious hypothesis depends on Un-intelligent evolution...which makes it a MYTH, in my books...based not only on logical/ mathematical/probabilistic analysis...

But likewise based on the sudden appearance of novel species / lack of transitional creatures in the fossil record ...And more

Everywhere the heavens and terrestrial nature shows signs of an INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...not a blind/ gradualistic/ Darwinian one

Darwinism is NOT science, but a fable IMO !

***


BTW ( Caminintx ) it is YOU who fail to understand the precept of Natural selection. First one has to have something useful to select ( which presumably would require quite a bit of random genetic tinkering/ mutations first..

again ...


Starting all over, once a spelling mistake is made in the phrase ( Darwinism_is_impossible ! ) ln my analogy...IS roughly akin to the death of the individual , or its failure to reproduce , due to genetic sequencing/ C-A-T-G spelling errors ....resulting in the unique mix of genes possessed by the organism to be scrapped/ again much like throwing the scrabble letters back into the hat

Most assuredly , the vast majority of genetic errors ( if randomly driven ) would be harmful , or at best neutral...BUT almost never beneficial ....So how could we envision thousands of unlikely beneficial genetic errors in quick succession, and in the same vicinity of DNA ? Contemplating even a single useful / novel gene from this Darwinian scenario ( just like managing to blindly spell ' Darwinism_is_impossible.') is pure fantasy !!!


Here’s a quote from another thread of mine which better illuminates the sheer intractability of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm...



****

BTW what about the argument that DNA is an informational code/ symbolic language ?...and my contentions ( shared by many other ID'ers ) that all such codes denote an underlying/ creative/ purposeful intelligence ...

Outside of DNA ( which again I find akin to a communication straight from the mind of the Creator ! ) provide me with one example of a comparable code not made by an intelligent mind/ minds ?

Ah let me guess...No smug responses from the Darwinist/ Materialist crowd ...scratch that I'm sure the condescending insults WILL FLY

Some of u staunch defenders of outmoded Materialism/ Darwin dogma...remind me so-oooo much of religious fundamentalists it's not even funny...Scratch that...

IT’S HILARIOUS !

CHEERS ET AL

Wow...I can't see the pots for all the kettles.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]