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

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

You haven't explained how AA's could even be formed spontaneously in the prebiotic soup/ much less exclusively left handed ones...much less assembled into proteins...under the early conditions of the primordial earth, before a single living cell even existed...

Miller-Urey formed amino acids from water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) in only a week and some have been detected in space, so it can't be that big of a problem, can it?

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

common ancestry provides no evidence for Darwinian evolution either, NOT when novel species always appear suddenly... rather than gradually via minute alterations, in the fossil record, as Darwinism predicts/ insists upon...These signs ( see the Cambrian Explosion/ Biology's Big Bang etc ) lend credence not to Darwinist scenarios... but rather to The ID hypothesis...

The creationist claim that species always appear suddenly only serves to highlight your lack of familiarity with the actual fossil record. There are numerous examples of smooth fossil transitions.

[yossarian22]

And the intermission is over, and my dissection continues. Look my more thorough dissection of what you did wrong for more detailed specifics.

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Hela

Yossarian: 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.

Again, I am not a biologist, nor do I pretend to be one. I am a statistician. And I told you substantiate your claim of a calculation. Your response fails to meet even the most basic criteria for statistical modelling

I don’t assign any probabilities for spontaneous AA formation . Why should I ? I think this is all but IMPOSSIBLE !

I could write a long winded response to this, but why beat around the bush. I do not care what you think is true. Show that it is 'all but impossible' Statistics require empirical evidence. A whole lot of empirical evidence.

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

We really need a broken record icon thing.
Empiricism is your friend. Well, maybe not yours, but its certainly the friend of statistics. Unsubstantiated drivel. Spades of it

I never assumed any such thing ,

Yes you did.
Check your calculations. An amino acid exists at a single point in time by your model. The formation of an amino acid is a single event. An absurd idea (unless an amino acid instantaneously composed, hence my labelling of 'lacking realism.

Tut Tut ...the same could be said of the entire Darwinian paradigm in SPADES .

Really? When did Darwinism become a mathematical model?
Oh wait, its not. And it never was.
And for my last trick, the biggest rabbit from my hat, if you will.....
Abiogenesis is not Darwinism nor is it in the Darwinistic paradigm.
So, assuming your model is valid (and it most certainly isn't.) you have shown that abiogensis is mathematically impossible.
But, as mentioned before abiogenesis is not darwinism.

But kindly provide us mere mortals ...with a better calculation for odds of a spontaneous protein synthesis... I wont hold my breath !

Again the need for me to repeat myself. This appears to be a trend in these 'debates'.
I do not need to provide a competing model to invalidate yours.
You either reject the null, or fail to reject the null. And your position sure ain't the null.

On a more serious note, if somebody took the time and gave me the parameters, I could produce a model. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion as I dislike bringing calculus (which has an almost 100% chance of being required for modeling) into a discussion
[qupte]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 ) [/quote]
I will alert every statistician that any binomial distribution follows B(n,.5) no matter what. I am sure they will be astonished.

I hope I don't need to point out the idiocy of that statement

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 !

Ah, so they are independent? Do you have even an inkling of evidence to support this?
Or to put this very very bluntly so you can't dance around
Prove that the formation of proteins from amino acids can be broken down into several steps, each totally independent of one another.

But of course, I only provided a minimal probablistic analysis

I feel like vomiting now.
What you posted was one of the largest butcheries of basic probability theory I have in a long long long time.

Obviously , this is just ball park ,since it doesn't even begin to represent the immense mountain of problems Darwinism faces.

You aren't even in the same order of magnitude. Your model basically says this
1. Because we cannot envision a reason why amino acids formed are left handed, we can arbitrarily assign a probability of .5
2: The formation of amino acids and subsequent bonding can be considered independent events
3: The formation of amino acids and subsequent bonding of amino acids can be treated as single events
There are more, but these three are enough to demolish the validity of your model.


[quote[
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 ! [/quote]
I'll pass thanks. I do not keep myself up to date with this stuff. I made my comment for a reason. Either you were lying and would leave, or would attempt to offer an extremely weak attempt to create and define a model which flawed at the most fundamental level, revealing your poor grasp of probability.

Either way, I never once demanded you to show the calculation (apologies if it seemed like I did) I asked you to cite the calculation. Yours is too flawed to be acceptable. Even a cursory glance over it reveals three massive fundamental flaws.
I say again, cite on these legions of experts who created a model about this. I am not adverse to being wrong, I have no vested interest in the validity of evolution.

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....

Well, lets see em. I am not going to do your research for you, and neither is anybody else.

Sorry, I don’t have a copy, of said papers

Convenient. Nevertheless, I am sure you could paraphrase one of the models. The abstracts are good.

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 !

My local library lacks this paper.

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 ?

That's not the problem. Even if I agreed with you, my response would be roughly the same. Stop butchering probability theory. Just a request. i could proceed to systematically demolish every single attempt at a counter point, but I figure this way is faster. Your model is critically flawed. Furthermore, I am not going to dig up your evidence and refute them.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Mestemia:

the problem with your "argument" ( Hela ) is you are arguing the odds after the fact. After the fact the odds are 1/1, period.

Au contraire...as per usual u misconstrue what I’m saying ( purposely, or simply due to a lack of understanding ? ) I believe in Evolution remember ?...An INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...A PURPOSEFUL EVOLUTION...But NOT in THE Un-intelligent/blind/Spontaneous/ Darwinian EVOLUTION OF LIFE/THE COSMOS ...There’s a Big Big BIG DIFFERENCE !

( insert edit here ) What we are really arguing here, is NOT wether something ( the appearance of life/ life's evolution in this case ) happened... BUT rather ' HOW '( I REPEAT, ' HOW !' ) it happened. Did it happened this way ? or did it happen that way ? Basing our arguments ( in this case ) on probability estimates/ logical analysis / what we know about biochemistry and its astounding complexity etcetera . So was the appearance of life spontaneous/ simply a fortuitous accident ? Was it's evolution underpinned by blind Darwinian forces ? Or does it appear that life, based on the preponderance of scientific evidence, was Purposefully/ Intelligently Designed ? Truth be told, the hard science is leaning heavily toward the ID hypothesis.

Evolutionary biologists IMO, definitely have a strong vested interest in sustaining the Darwinian Paradigm/status quo, and again IMO are fighting tooth and nail to preserve it ( not very successfully -its crumbling fast ) BUT every mathematician , I know of ( and mathematicians have no obvious vested interest in Darwinism ) who has studied the complexities of biochemistry has declared unequivocally that :' LIFE/THE COSMOS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT ! ... anyone care to take the pepsi challenge on this one/ try to find a renown mathematician who claims otherwise ? END EDIT

Mestemia:

In fact, IF it ( Darwinian evolution ???? ) did NOT happen ( just the way Chuckie D and company said it did ???? ) you would not be here to present your IRRELEVANT "calculations" of the odds of something that has already happened happening

Sorry, but that’s pure nonsense...I have merely contended that a blind/ chance/ purely Darwinian Evolution NEVER HAPPENED ! And this debate is most assuredly NOT IRRELEVANT , irrespective of ur nonsensical assertions here.

****
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam Mestemia....I’m NOT saying evolution did not happen. I’m saying evolution was NOT, and could NOT have been underpinned by blind Darwinian forces...That’s Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE IMO ( and again to my knowledge, every mathematician whose ever considered the odds, agrees with me about this ! )

In terms of sheer probability... belief in blind Darwinism IS irrational. Seriously, Find me a single Mathematician who claims otherwise/ has composed any probabilistic models which conclude anything different...I’ll lay dollars to donuts...YOU WON’T FIND ONE

***
Ok Here’s a simple / real life analogy Mestemia ...I’ve used it before, in another thread...BUT ( assuming any here read it ) some obviously didn’t GET IT the first time

People say 'evolution' when they really mean ' Darwinism/ Darwinian evolution' ad nauseam...

The two ...evolution and Darwinism are NOT necessarily the same...evolution could just as easily entail creative-evolution/ purposeful creation driven by intelligence over untold eons= ID

To use an analogy...cars have ' evolved' and there is even an element of natural selection here, as in consumer choice...But the design of cars was obviously also purposeful / underpinned by intelligence...and there was nothing random about these Design modifications at all !

Why not say ' Darwinism' when u mean Darwinism ?...avoiding unnecessary confusion?

***

Alright Mestemia ( I’m trying to be patient here ) suppose we substitute the word CARS for LIFE in ur above commentary.

Now imagine there’s some ' Manic/Mestemia-wannabe' who’s fully convinced that modern CARS got here because of blind/random/purely naturalistic forces...I don’t know ? the wind, rain, earth upheaval volcanism, take ur pick...Of course, I’m being ( purposely ) nonsensical/irrational... But then again, so were u , in ur original post IMO

Obviously , CARS have evolved, so has the cosmos, and so has LIFE ....I’m certainly NOT denying any of this...BUT has this evolution, been underpinned by INTELLIGENCE? or by purely spontaneous/ blind / dispassionate Darwinian forces? ...CLEARLY Kemosabey that's the crux of the biscuit/ the core of our debate

Now if u said to me; ‘ the ONLY possibility is that CARS evolved spontaneously ( albeit honed by Natural Selection / consumer’s taste/ choice etcetera... ) Otherwise CARS would NOT be here for us to DRIVE...I’d have to bite my tongue not to laugh at you...

And by the same token.....if u said to me ( and u basically did ) that: ‘ the ONLY possibility is that LIFE evolved spontaneously ( albeit honed by Natural Selection/ predator’s taste/choice etcetera... ) Otherwise WE would NOT be here to DISCUSS LIFE...I’d have to bite my tongue again.

****
Ok this is called learning thru repetition ...so for all those who ( sad to say ) haven't been paying attention...kindly repeat after me :

Evolution and Darwinism are NOT necessarily the same...The Origin of Life/ Species might well be underpinned by Creative-Evolution/ Purposeful Creation driven by INTELLIGENCE over untold eons= ID *** Evolution and Darwinism are NOT necessarily the same...The Origin of Life/ Species might well be underpinned by Creative-Evolution/ Purposeful Creation driven by INTELLIGENCE over untold eons= ID ***Evolution and Darwinism are NOT necessarily the same...The Origin of Life/ Species might well be underpinned by Creative-Evolution/ Purposeful Creation driven by INTELLIGENCE over untold eons= ID ****

When it comes to the final victor in this ID vs. Darwinism debate... NOTHING has been absolutely/irrefutably determined yet...so please stay tuned !

CHEERS ET AL.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Sorry but I want to re-cap , before responding to some of the latest posts ( which btw... I haven’t even read yet/ too many distractions/ pressed for time...I WILL ! )

Ok ...DEJA VU TIME :

Yossarian

I will be quite blunt. Show the calculation. This is a continous claim, but never has an actual calculation been shown. I am interested, so go ahead. It should be easy.
The rest of your post can wait.
Show me a single calculation.( Or shut the Hell Up! )

Ah Yes...It was u Yossarian who was doing all the cheap/trash talking earlier...I’d quite forgotten ...Well I HAVE responded ...And if u need more , rest assured you’ll get it ...But now, it's my turn to issue a Challenge...

Seriously, STEP UP TO THE PLATE Sonny B...Let’s C if You Can Handle The High Heat ?... Which I DOUBT

Actually, I thrown this One...Twice before...and u didn’t even offer so much as a FEEBLE SWING Y ?...Which leads me to think that ur Bravado is Bogus....But Hey , maybe you’ll surprise me this time...Ok Here comes the Pitch...’ SWING BATTER’

DNA/RNA is nothing less than an ‘ informational code or symbolic language.’( WHICH IMO, MIGHT AS WELL BE A MESSAGE FROM ON HIGH, SENT BY DIVINITY !)

So Name me a comparably complex code, or any code at all ( YOSSARIAN ) which was not the brainchild of an Intelligent Mind or Minds ?

I am interested, ( in ur response Y-man ) so go ahead ( take ur best swing ). It should be easy ( for a big time intellectual jock like u ) The rest of your post can wait

Mestemia :

I have noticed a trend amongst creationists ( substitute Materialist/Darwinist ici...and I think you’d be far closer to the mark ) ....They avoid direct questions.

Seems to me that I ( a self confessed Creationist ) although heavily out numbered in this thread,.by staunch Materialists/ Darwinists...Have met their smug challenges head on...

Funny, But when the tables are turned...all I hear are CRICKETS CHIRPING ?

****

Sorry but no more time...to post today...I’ve gotta Bug out...( P.S. Yossarian, as mentioned earlier, I haven’t had time to read all the posts, so maybe u’ve responded to my repeated challenge/question already ??? Hopefully, u have ...)

CHEERS AGAIN ET AL..

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Mestemia :

Seems to me that I ( a self confessed Creationist ) although heavily out numbered in this thread,.by staunch Materialists/ Darwinists...Have met their smug challenges head on...

Funny, But when the tables are turned...all I hear are CRICKETS CHIRPING ?

Hmmm, this sounds much like how Muslims react when people do not "defeat" their erroneous assumptions. It is not proven to be incorrect, so, by default, it IS correct. How cavalier is that? Not to forget mentioning... utterly convenient, if not intellectually dishonest. I rather suspect that this chirping you are hearing is the distant sound of laughter. BTW: Do you have the slightest understanding of probability theory? Have you had any training in mathmatics beyond elementary school, that is?

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Sorry but no more time...to post today...I’ve gotta Bug out...( P.S. Yossarian, as mentioned earlier, I haven’t had time to read all the posts, so maybe u’ve responded to my repeated challenge/question already ??? Hopefully, u have ...)

How fascinating that you cherry pick what he is saying in order to refute what he is saying, without bothering to try to understand WHAT he is saying, lol. Does that even sound reasonable to you?

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

CHEERS AGAIN ET AL..

Hela, it is very plain to see that you have no real training in many of the fields that you are touching on in your discussions. Am I wrong in this notion? Linguistic adeptness is handy, but sadly, it is no replacement for cold hard facts. I suspect that is what Yossarian was getting at in his statements about "BS-ing". You talk a good game, but your thinking on ambiogenesis is flawed. Nice try though.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam Mestemia....I’m NOT saying evolution did not happen. I’m saying evolution was NOT, and could NOT have been underpinned by blind Darwinian forces...That’s Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE IMO ( and to my knowledge, every mathematician whose ever considered the odds, agrees with me about this ! )

What you have attempted to discredit is a strawman and has no relation whatsoever to the Theory of Evolution proposed by Darwin or anyone else in the biological sciences.

Since you apparently like playing games, let me suggest one that will better illustrate how evolution and natural selection actually works.

• Start by writing down the word "life" on a piece of paper. This represents the spontaneous emergence of a simple life form.

• Randomly change one of the letters to a different letter. This represents the random mutations we see in the replication of DNA. Throw in numbers and punctuation marks if you wish to make it more realistic.

• Compare the new word to any dictionary to see if it spells a new word. If you spelled a new word or phrase, give yourself a point, a new species has evolved. Misspelled words don't count against you since most DNA mutations are benign to the organism.

• If you spelled any of George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words, the organism dies. Cross it out and go back to the previous set of letters. You don't have to start over from the beginning because living organisms typically produce multiple offspring so the loss of a single offspring does not end the game.

• If you draw the letter 'z', draw another random letter and add it to the end of your word. If you spell the word "copy" anywhere then add the word "copy" immediately behind it. This represents the insertion of base pairs due to transcription errors in the DNA replication process.

Play this game long enough and I think you would be surprised how long and complex the words will get in no time at all.

[Mestemia]

Wow.
Out of the three things he attributes me saying, I have only actually said ONE of them...