Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism

[LukeS]

How do we account for their existence in a creationism scenario? Were they created to deceive us into believing that we evolved?

IMO creationism was the best bet till Darwinism came along. We are complex creatures, and experience shows they don't just pop into existence. That's why I questioned Darwinism by trying to present geological time as an illusion. AFAIK B-series time is fairly respectable, its not total hogwash, so there in was my case. Physicists know of such history, and apparent cosmological history, but some of them (I think) believe in B-series / eternalism. But see below...

 

[LukeS]

OK. It is standard in cosmology to talk about the universe as a four dimensional manifold: three dimensions of space and one of time. This viewpoint is closest to the 'B' theory of time, but isn't quite the same. It does imagine ALL of space and time together, past, present, and future, together as a single entity.

In this viewpoint, the universe simply exists. It doesn't begin to exist. It doesn't end. Since all of time and space is in this single geometric structure, the universe simply *is*. Time is part of the universe, as is space, and, of course, all the stuff we see around us, throughout time.

Again, this is *absolutely standard* when doing modern cosmology.

However, in this manifold, there is a directionality for time: causality within the manifold happens from earlier times to later times. So causality is also within the universe.

Our consciousnesses, like you say, are the result of how entropy changes with time *within* the universe, so is dependent on the fact that we have memories of the past and not the future (even though the future 'exists' in this structure).

Is this a good picture of what you are describing?

Now, why you think that evolution doesn't happen *within* that space-time manifold, I do not know. Again, just as we can talk about north and south on a globe, we can still talk about the past and the present in space-time. And just as the geography of the Earth changes as we go further north, the specifics in space-time change as we go to the future.

So, species *do* change over geological time. If you slice space-time at two different times, the species will be different. And *that* is all that evolution says.

Ok youre obviously more advanced in these topics than I am, so peace. It was just an improvised attempt as a case for creationism. Not something a have deep faith in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok youre obviously more advanced in these topics than I am, so peace. It was just an improvised attempt as a case for creationism. Not something a have deep faith in.

Thank you for your contribution. I hope you benefited from the discussion.

The principle objection to your argument was that removing time from the equation isn't more damaging to evolution than creationism. You're eliminating time - calling it an illusion created by consciousness if I understand your argument correctly - and implying that that eliminates evolution, but somehow, not creationism.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

That's not a part of science

If any particular scientist has made that claim, he doesn't speak for the collective, and he is making a claim to knowledge that others realize that he cannot possibly possess.

The claim of rational skeptics is that no idea should be believed without testing it against reason and reality. If we can't detect it even in principle because it has no impact on reality, then its existence is irrelevant.

And how do we know that what we don't know, because we can't detect it, doesn't have impact on reality and is irrelevant? We only can test things to the extent that we have capability to do so. The gradual unfolding of science has been a growing awareness that things we once assumed did not have impact on reality do. That we don't know it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is irrelevant.

I can think of the combustion of carbon, for one, which is such big news for us today. Back in the 1896 when Svante Arrhenius first proposed that carbon released into the atmosphere would cause temperatures to warm, most rational skeptics felt that its existence was irrelevant. Yet it was tremendously relevant to the decisions that people and governments were making at a time the human population was transitioning to fossil fuels in the impacts this would have on not only the lives of their descendants but on just about every aspect of the ecosphere.

Another is agricultural chemicals. Such a view that things are irrelevant as long as we are unable to observe them has led to the pouring of millions of tons of agroindustrial chemicals all over the surface of the planet, which which we are finding is having a myriad of effects, biochemical, ecological, and social. Insects and birds are disappearing just as Rachel Carsons predicted, humans are getting all kinds of cancers and diet related diseases that didn't exist just some decades ago, fertility of soil is being used up faster than ever before, species populations are being devastated, and due to changes in scale of production forced on agricultural producers, there has been vast removal of population from the countryside globally on a scale unprecedented in the history of agricultural societies with barely any though that perhaps something might be wrong with this. Most rational scientists and even many anthropologists have little appreciation for the relevance this all has for our future, not even because it hasn't been observed.

Another position we heard from supposedly rational scientists no more than a decade or so ago was that genetic engineering wouldn't have effect on us for various reasons -- that it was just an extension of nature, that relevant enzymes aren't produced by humans, that the associated herbicide is sticky and doesn't leave the soil that it was sprayed on, that it is not absorbed by animals that eat it. On all counts recent studies are proving these assertions wrong. Just one scientist at MIT has written 80 or more papers giving evidence of strong ties between Glyphosate and the exploding rates of autism, Alzheimer and other diseases, with demonstration of the mechanisms causing it. Manufacturers said that it would have no effect on humans because our bodies don't produce the enzyme it suppresses, but our gut flora do produce that enzyme and it turns out it is essential to many systems of the body including cleaning the brain of wastes, according to the scientist. And then are not the ecosystems that it is being applied to of relevance to us? These are all things that weren't observable but they are turning out to be having immense relevance. Many scientists were calling for caution based on "rational" deductions from other knowledge as well as the cautionary principle, but it was the prediction of the harmlessness without any means to test things that hadn't occurred yet that were used to justify policy -- evidently by 'rational' scientists, or to put it another way practitioners who referred to science to convince people that they were rational. Furthermore, resulting reduction of diversity in crops as the GM crops are pushing out local varieties of both domestic and wild versions of crops are threatening to have catastrophic consequences--this too was predicted through rational deduction and induction. Many elements furthermore have been long observed and well documented for hybrids and their associated packages of chemicals and technology.

Your use of the word "rational" with the word "science" is contradiction in terms, since science, due to the close association of rationalism with a religion which the Roman Church was using to attack the emerging sciences back in the middle of the last millennium, discarded rationalism for an empiricism that presumed that the only real things are those we can detect, as you say. It is almost as if you are quoting Decartes and his epigones directly, it has so much infiltrated into our thought.

And yet, the premises that this position bases itself has no empirical basis and must be taken on belief. Alfred Whitehead discusses this in his book Science and the Modern World. He also points out that the language science uses originates from previous vernacular usages makes scientific knowlege imperfect representations of the world which, combined with premises such as the one above, make it impossible for science to actually reach truth.

Regarding Whitehead's criticism of science for premising itself on unverified beliefs, Karl Popper recently said basically the same thing when he argued that our sciences extend from paradigms which make them valid only as long as the paradigms hold up. A good example of changing premises or paradigms are Einstein's theory of relativity and Max Planck's quantum mechanics which, as Whitehead points out, despite their revolutionary implications for all human thought and culture still have not been integrated into most of the sciences, which simply go on as if Einstein and Planck never existed. Creating a premise for science that extended from these revolutionary changes was in fact the work of the last several decades of Whitehead's work.

The scientific method always selects particular elements of things as significant and in doing so discards other elements that may be significant: for example, the thought that we can know a living thing by describing it. This leads us to be indifferent of other properties that organisms and things have in our appropriation of them. A good example is the hunting whales for oil. While remaining indifferent to their role in the ecosystem which at that time was not understood and thus considered irrelevant to the human use of whales as a means of harvesting carbon energy. Whales it turns out caused up-welling of lower sediments from the bottom of the ocean, and their great reduction has caused changes in the ecology and productivity of the entire ocean, with implications furthermore for another problem we are having, climate change. Also, after whale populations were reduced, marine mammals region by region have been disappearing as killer whales which once preyed on whales now have been forced to shift to eating one population of marine animals after the other to make up for the very small proportion of whales they once hunted to sustain their population.

Finally, growing means to control increasingly powerful forces has given us the ability to have increasingly wider effects on our world without even knowing what effects we are having until they come about. There are many, many things being disclosed which we previously could not detect, or which we failed to anticipate because our premises led us not to ask the right questions. And yet I would say that no rational person would say that they are irrelevant to us just because we are unable to detect them. Unfortunately, there are plenty of irrational people yet who are saying that things are irrelevant even when we do detect and analyze them in detail. Alfred Whitehead would say our dangerous mistake is to assume that just because we don't have the means to detect something, or because our knowledge is incomplete, that what we don't know is irrelevant to us. He gave this warning, furthermore, nearly a century ago.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Ok youre obviously more advanced in these topics than I am, so peace. It was just an improvised attempt as a case for creationism. Not something a have deep faith in.

Devil's advocates are always appreciated. And people who are just being honest even if they aren't consciously taking that role even more so.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

The Cambrian Explosion took place over 30 million years. It wasn't a short period of time by any stretch of the imagination.

So, why, in your opinion, does it contradict evolution?

I'll add to your reply as well that in fact Charles Darwin did in fact predict just that in a wonderful discussion. It is a couple decades since I read the Origin of Species, so I may be grievously misquoting him, but basically he said that once a breakthrough is made in evolution, there is an immense explosion of new forms of life made possible by such breakthrough. I do recommend that everyone should read him just as a part of the essential corpus of literature of western civilization.

 

[Riders]

So are you saying that the creation account according to Genesis in the bible is correct?

 

[Riders]

Sense the events if they were true would've taken place million billions of years ago how did the story get passed down to the bible. I mean I realize stories were passed down through retelling them over and over but I can't see any proof because of the time that has passed that it could've been passed down for a billion years

 

[stevevw]

When I flick the switch, I get light at night. I see no polio around me. I can communicate with you almost instantly whatever part of the world you are in. That's how I decide that science is on the right track. And I think I'm probably in the majority there.

I encourage modern scientists to continue with their program of investigating and speculating. It's made life longer, healthier, safer, more comfortable, and more interesting. What more are you hoping for from this methodology?

The problem is hindsight is always 20/20 vision. The process to get to the light switching on had a lot of wrong turns and results as well. Its some of the in between ideas that can also be claimed as correct and some people can use that science to claim things that are not verified but by presenting it a certain way can influence a lot of people. If you look at the travelling medicine man in the 1800s a lot of it was showmanship rather than science. We have similar today with scientists like Dawkins or Krausse who have very powerful sway on people. Plus science has progressed way beyond the discovery of light and in some areas it is easier to fool people by turning spectualtion into verification.

Astrophysics and quantum physics are two area that can attract this sort of thing and sometimes its a case of choosing the best presented speculation because all of it is spectualtion. Becuase they havent found anything that can be verified and may never be able to becuase it is beyond scientific understanding and verification its a case of presenting the best one that can be sold rather than verified. The theory of everything is the ultimate goal but as Hawkins said then we may knoww the mind of God. Understanding how relativity and quantum physics unites, multiverses, hologram worlds, string theory, worm holes, spooky action at a distance, Schrödinger's cat, virtual particles, nothing is really something the list goes on.

In fact the last one is a good example of how some scientists turn spectualtion into science. Krausse was going around claiming he found the answer to how the universe began from nothing and Dawkins jumped on the band wagon claiming they finally proved God was not needed. They went to great lengths to explain how nothing is really a special kind of something that is really nothing and getting themselves all confused. Many people believed them and fell for the deceptive trickey.

 

[McBell]

In fact the last one is a good example of how some scientists turn spectualtion into science. Krausse was going around claiming he found the answer to how the universe began from nothing and Dawkins jumped on the band wagon claiming they finally proved God was not needed. They went to great lengths to explain how nothing is really a special kind of something that is really nothing and getting themselves all confused. Many people believed them and fell for the deceptive trickey.

Perhaps theists should have set the bar higher?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem is hindsight is always 20/20 vision. The process to get to the light switching on had a lot of wrong turns and results as well. Its some of the in between ideas that can also be claimed as correct and some people can use that science to claim things that are not verified but by presenting it a certain way can influence a lot of people. If you look at the travelling medicine man in the 1800s a lot of it was showmanship rather than science. We have similar today with scientists like Dawkins or Krausse who have very powerful sway on people. Plus science has progressed way beyond the discovery of light and in some areas it is easier to fool people by turning spectualtion into verification.

Astrophysics and quantum physics are two area that can attract this sort of thing and sometimes its a case of choosing the best presented speculation because all of it is spectualtion. Becuase they havent found anything that can be verified and may never be able to becuase it is beyond scientific understanding and verification its a case of presenting the best one that can be sold rather than verified. The theory of everything is the ultimate goal but as Hawkins said then we may knoww the mind of God. Understanding how relativity and quantum physics unites, multiverses, hologram worlds, string theory, worm holes, spooky action at a distance, Schrödinger's cat, virtual particles, nothing is really something the list goes on.

In fact the last one is a good example of how some scientists turn spectualtion into science. Krausse was going around claiming he found the answer to how the universe began from nothing and Dawkins jumped on the band wagon claiming they finally proved God was not needed. They went to great lengths to explain how nothing is really a special kind of something that is really nothing and getting themselves all confused. Many people believed them and fell for the deceptive trickey.

At the end of the day, science has delivered and keeps on delivering. You seem to disapprove of some aspect of it.

 

[Dell]

The best argument creationism can give is ….


“Requirements of the first paradox”, the first information required to build new information, the first proteins required to build one new protein, the first cell that host, read, build proteins from information in DNA to split and replicate new cells. The first machine to build other new machines, etc..


This is only seen by skilled fabricators making all parts required for the whole unit to perform its designed task properly, which in the case of a cell, to do a task and build components for another cell.


Naturalist try to fit origins of logical information to natural events and ignore the probability of nonliving unorganized material to be formed by undirected events, forming logical information contained in DNA and so forth.


The best answer we will ever get regarding origins is creating synthetic life and determining what's involved to create it and testing whether it could have formed naturally billions of years ago.


But all that said, I don't believe the naturalist have it all wrong... most religions that teach creationism totally ignore the truths of evolution science and the fossil record, along with believing fabricated biblical history or horrible translations that people put their faith in, such as 6000 year old earth. Total nonsense.


I have read odds of probability that life arose by undirected events, something like..

10 to 64th power that non living matter could be formed into 1st protein.

10 to 340 millionth power a cell could form in the same method.

Science deems odds 10 to the 70th power as operationally impossible.


I'm sure those odds were provided by pro intelligent design people, naturalist wouldn't give odds like that because most believe starting life is a natural phenomenon like the formation of a star and boom life. Most say life should be self started all over the galaxy considering how many earth like planets there should be. IF they are right and life is a natural phenomenon, I would have to believe a successful sustaining start would be extremely rare, and we will never find any evidence of it in our galaxy.

 

[stevevw]

At the end of the day, science has delivered and keeps on delivering. You seem to disapprove of some aspect of it.

I don't disapprove of science purse, I disagree with the hypocrisy of some who claim certain things in the name of science which is not verified and use that as a form of propaganda to sell their stories about certain beliefs they have just as much as anyone they claim does through religious belief. It is exactly the same except they can use the line because its not connected with religion it is more trustworthy because science is only interested in the verifiable. People accuse Christians of not believing in evolution because it does not sit well with their belief but you can say the same about those who support evolution or the materialistic view of life believing in all things that people say about life based on the world view of science whether it is verified or not. It just fits in well with their non-belief.

 

[Jose Fly]

“Requirements of the first paradox”, the first information required to build new information, the first proteins required to build one new protein, the first cell that host, read, build proteins from information in DNA to split and replicate new cells. The first machine to build other new machines, etc..


This is only seen by skilled fabricators making all parts required for the whole unit to perform its designed task properly, which in the case of a cell, to do a task and build components for another cell.

So what "skilled fabricator" do you propose was lurking around the pre-biotic earth some 4 billion years ago?

Naturalist try to fit origins of logical information to natural events and ignore the probability of nonliving unorganized material to be formed by undirected events, forming logical information contained in DNA and so forth.

Please show the calculations behind this "probability" you claim people are ignoring.

The best answer we will ever get regarding origins is creating synthetic life and determining what's involved to create it and testing whether it could have formed naturally billions of years ago.

In a way.....more likely we'll find that under the right conditions and with the right reagents, it is possible for simple living organisms to form.

I have read odds of probability that life arose by undirected events, something like..

10 to 64th power that non living matter could be formed into 1st protein.

10 to 340 millionth power a cell could form in the same method.

Science deems odds 10 to the 70th power as operationally impossible.

Again, please provide the calculations.

I'm sure those odds were provided by pro intelligent design people, naturalist wouldn't give odds like that because most believe starting life is a natural phenomenon like the formation of a star and boom life.

The flaw in such appeals to probability by creationists is that they assume chemistry is a random process.

 

[Skwim]

The best argument creationism can give is ….


“Requirements of the first paradox”, the first information required to build new information, the first proteins required to build one new protein, the first cell that host, read, build proteins from information in DNA to split and replicate new cells. The first machine to build other new machines, etc..


This is only seen by skilled fabricators making all parts required for the whole unit to perform its designed task properly, which in the case of a cell, to do a task and build components for another cell.


Naturalist try to fit origins of logical information to natural events and ignore the probability of nonliving unorganized material to be formed by undirected events, forming logical information contained in DNA and so forth.


The best answer we will ever get regarding origins is creating synthetic life and determining what's involved to create it and testing whether it could have formed naturally billions of years ago.


But all that said, I don't believe the naturalist have it all wrong... most religions that teach creationism totally ignore the truths of evolution science and the fossil record, along with believing fabricated biblical history or horrible translations that people put their faith in, such as 6000 year old earth. Total nonsense.


I have read odds of probability that life arose by undirected events, something like..

10 to 64th power that non living matter could be formed into 1st protein.

10 to 340 millionth power a cell could form in the same method.

Science deems odds 10 to the 70th power as operationally impossible.


I'm sure those odds were provided by pro intelligent design people, naturalist wouldn't give odds like that because most believe starting life is a natural phenomenon like the formation of a star and boom life. Most say life should be self started all over the galaxy considering how many earth like planets there should be. IF they are right and life is a natural phenomenon, I would have to believe a successful sustaining start would be extremely rare, and we will never find any evidence of it in our galaxy.

Evidently you missed reading:

EDITED TO NOTE: Because this is in the "EVOLUTION Vs CREATIONISM" forum and one may wish to base an argument for creationism on a perceived shortcoming of evolution, please keep in mind that abiogenesis (the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter) is NOT a part of evolution. Evolutionists don't care how life first came into being, be it through abiogenesis or the hand of god. ​

in my OP.

.

 

[Skwim]

I don't disapprove of science purse, I disagree with the hypocrisy of some who claim certain things in the name of science which is not verified and use that as a form of propaganda to sell their stories about certain beliefs they have just as much as anyone they claim does through religious belief.

And everyone should disapprove of such maneuverings, be it in science, politics, the arts, or religion.

People accuse Christians of not believing in evolution because it does not sit well with their belief but you can say the same about those who support evolution or the materialistic view of life believing in all things that people say about life based on the world view of science whether it is verified or not. It just fits in well with their non-belief.

Actually, most people don't accuse Christians of any such thing. The only time evolutionists bring themselves to care what Christians think about evolution is when they try to counter it in public schools with the inclusion of creationism in science classes.

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

People accuse Christians of not believing in evolution because it does not sit well with their belief but you can say the same about those who support evolution or the materialistic view of life believing in all things that people say about life based on the world view of science whether it is verified or not. It just fits in well with their non-belief.

The situations are not symmetric.

Evolutionary theory unifies mountains of observations about the tree of life using a unifying explanatory mechanism under a self-evidently correct explanatory mechanism (nature undeniably generates biological variation and select from it), makes predictions that are falsifiable but have not been falsified in a century-and-a-half, and has application to technology that has improved the human condition.

Creationism offers none of those. It is as sterile an idea as astrology, which, like creationism, cannot be used for anything except making a living.

These are the cardinal features of a correct idea and an incorrect one. The correct one can correctly anticipate some aspect of reality and can be used to achieve some desired outcomes.The incorrect idea fails at that.

If that isn't clear yet, consider directions to somebody's home or an instruction manual for a device. If the ideas in them are correct, you will get to your destination or make your device work according to your expectations. If the ideas are wrong, the opposite occurs.

If that isn't part of your definition of fact and truth, we are not talking about the same thing and we are not looking for the same thing. Mine is a pragmatic one. It has to produce results, and those results are the evidence that justifies treating such ideas as correct.

 

[stevevw]

The situations are not symmetric.

Evolutionary theory unifies mountains of observations about the tree of life using a unifying explanatory mechanism under a self-evidently correct explanatory mechanism (nature undeniably generates biological variation and select from it), makes predictions that are falsifiable but have not been falsified in a century-and-a-half, and has application to technology that has improved the human condition.

But the basis for saying the tree of life supports evolution is an assumption becuase no one can truely know what happened in the beginning stages of life. If for example there was an agent be it God or an alien race who planted the seeds of life on earth then what we say is evidence for evolution through natural selection and random mutations would also be what we see from the planting of that seed of life. Just like a seed for a plant has all the instructions for creating leaves, flowers and nectar which support other forms of life and also has the ability to adapt and produce different forms through non-adaptive mechanisms etc so can the seed of life have the instructions to produce different life forms. It is an assumption that new information can be created from what is existing and I think the evidence shows that complex life has been around from a very early point in time and has been varied from that.

Creationism offers none of those. It is as sterile an idea as astrology, which, like creationism, cannot be used for anything except making a living.

Creationism should not be mixed with the science of how life changes. Creationism does not even say anything about how life changes and adapts. It only talks about how life came about in the beginning and this is not a scientific explanation or an explanation at all. Just a divine statemnet about creation by God. Creation and science/evolution should not be compared of mixed.

If that isn't clear yet, consider directions to somebody's home or an instruction manual for a device. If the ideas in them are correct, you will get to your destination or make your device work according to your expectations. If the ideas are wrong, the opposite occurs.

An explanation about something does not mean that it also tells use its origin or how it fits into the greater scheme of things. When science explains the workings of the universe through physics or mathematical equations this does not tell us how the universe came into existence. Explanations and equations do not have any creative ability. But some think just becuase we can explain and understand something that this also gives us the answer to how things came to be. Its like saying that becuase we can explain a device through an instruction manual that the device must have also made it self becuase we know the inner workings of it. This is the thinking I am talking about that is in all humans which is based on their beliefs whether it is science or religion. For those who dont believe in God explanations and equations are the circumstancial evidence that is used to support the idea that everything has a naturalistic cause. But if anything becuase something has mathematical equations and physical laws points to intelligence if anything.

If that isn't part of your definition of fact and truth, we are not talking about the same thing and we are not looking for the same thing. Mine is a pragmatic one. It has to produce results, and those results are the evidence that justifies treating such ideas as correct.

I understand what you mean by the testing and verification of something and that is not in question as a method to test observations. But I am also talking about how that process can be used to support personal beliefs and views about something as science has a lot of power of persuation becuase it is not the science but the humans behind it. It is also be about how you see the evidence and how it fits into the greaater scheme of things. Something may be verified such as gravity but this only tells us that it exists, it doesnt tell us what that represents in the greater scheme of things but some will use these verifications and then make further claims based on assumptions about life and existence and claim that it is also verified.

 

[stevevw]

And everyone should disapprove of such maneuverings, be it in science, politics, the arts, or religion.

I agree

Actually, most people don't accuse Christians of any such thing. The only time evolutionists bring themselves to care what Christians think about evolution is when they try to counter it in public schools with the inclusion of creationism in science classes.

.

From what I have seen it is not just about schools but any time the topic is debated. I think if you go into the religion v evolution or science threads you will see a lot of this and sometimes its justified. But it can become a standardized rebuff as soon as God or religion is mentioned or associated with someone who challenges the consensus of say evolution they will say that they only takee that position because of their belief. The point is supporters of evolution can do the same through group think or herd mentality when they follow the consensus of something because science says its so. Its a natural human behavior.

 

[Polymath257]

I have read odds of probability that life arose by undirected events, something like..

10 to 64th power that non living matter could be formed into 1st protein.

10 to 340 millionth power a cell could form in the same method.

Science deems odds 10 to the 70th power as operationally impossible.

I'm sure those odds were provided by pro intelligent design people, naturalist wouldn't give odds like that because most believe starting life is a natural phenomenon like the formation of a star and boom life. Most say life should be self started all over the galaxy considering how many earth like planets there should be. IF they are right and life is a natural phenomenon, I would have to believe a successful sustaining start would be extremely rare, and we will never find any evidence of it in our galaxy.

There are issues with those calculated odd just from a mathematical perspective. They almost always assume that a certain sequence of events has to happen *in a specific order* and that every step in this sequence is independent (in the sense of probability) from the other events. That is how they manage to multiply a large collection of numbers together to get odds that low.

The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.

Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.

Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.

Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.

Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.

And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen.