The Evolution Fraud

[Newtonian]

1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme at least once approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, once is enough ... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four at least once in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...

Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...

rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved. Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme. That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:

1. A primordial soup. Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life. Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids. And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids. The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.

The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents. Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).

For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title. Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).

I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000). Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable. Here is the list:

(After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order.
Formic acid - 1000
Glycine - 270
Glycolic acid - 240
Alanine - 146
133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
Lactic acid - 133
beta-Alanine - 64
Acetic acid - 64
Propionic acid - 56
Iminodiacetic acid - 24
Sarcosine - 21
a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
Succinic acid - 17
Urea - 17
Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
N-Methyl urea - 6
N-Methylalanine - 6
Glutamic acid - 4
Aspartic acid - 3.2
a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4

So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins? Time will tell - take your time you all.

And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?

I think the problem religious supernaturalists have with understanding biology and the origins of life is that their arguments come from religious extremist websites that have an obvious agenda to denigrate science. I note that exclusively, the extremists make no positive argument in favor of their respective gods but resort to the stereotypical “amino acids” and “primordial soup” argument which is standard creationist behavior.

Note that the Watchtower Bible Tract” (JW’s), are notorious for the spread of misinformation regarding evolution and biology.

CB010.2: Origin of the first cells

Claim CB010.2:
The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
Response:

1. Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
   
   
2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
   
   
3. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
   • Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
   • Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
   • Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
   • Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
   • The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
   • Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
   • Something that no one has thought of yet.

Links:
Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks. PLoS Biology 3(11): e396.http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396

Wow Hollie! You actually have scientific content I can respond to in a scientific manner relevant to thread theme. Thank you for the cut and paste - though I thought you didn't like cutting and pasting? And thank you for quoting our literature - another thing I thought you didn't like! Granted, you are misrepresenting our literature which is likely why you linked to an anti-JW website when our literature can be found in context on our website. I should also thank you for posting an example of evolutionist fraud ironically accusing us of being inaccurate!

So where do you want me to start? How about concerning the iron-sulphur 'world'/environment not used by most chemical evolutionists in their synthesis experiments?

But first, since you have cut and pasted a source which misrepresents our literature, I should post what our literature says about abiogenesis specifically of the simplest possible living cell. Your link quotes our 1985 book but does not state a link to it so the reader can see the context. Here is the link, first to the 35 year old book (is it out of date?):

Creation (ce) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Note that we update our literature as further research demands it - just as in the case of scientific literature (like the postulated early earth atmosphere at the origin of life). Noteworthy is the fact that your source does not reference our updated 1998 book on the same subject here:

Creator (ct) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Nor our even more up-to-date 2010 brochures on the origin of life here:

Origin of Life (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

and:

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

In my next post I will address the specific quote your source says is in error - meanwhile, why not actually read the context and our updates?

 

[Hollie]

1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme at least once approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, once is enough ... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four at least once in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...

Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...

rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved. Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme. That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:

1. A primordial soup. Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life. Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids. And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids. The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.

The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents. Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).

For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title. Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).

I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000). Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable. Here is the list:

(After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order.
Formic acid - 1000
Glycine - 270
Glycolic acid - 240
Alanine - 146
133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
Lactic acid - 133
beta-Alanine - 64
Acetic acid - 64
Propionic acid - 56
Iminodiacetic acid - 24
Sarcosine - 21
a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
Succinic acid - 17
Urea - 17
Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
N-Methyl urea - 6
N-Methylalanine - 6
Glutamic acid - 4
Aspartic acid - 3.2
a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4

So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins? Time will tell - take your time you all.

And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?

I think the problem religious supernaturalists have with understanding biology and the origins of life is that their arguments come from religious extremist websites that have an obvious agenda to denigrate science. I note that exclusively, the extremists make no positive argument in favor of their respective gods but resort to the stereotypical “amino acids” and “primordial soup” argument which is standard creationist behavior.

Note that the Watchtower Bible Tract” (JW’s), are notorious for the spread of misinformation regarding evolution and biology.

CB010.2: Origin of the first cells

Claim CB010.2:
The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
Response:

1. Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
   
   
2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
   
   
3. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
   • Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
   • Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
   • Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
   • Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
   • The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
   • Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
   • Something that no one has thought of yet.

Links:
Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks. PLoS Biology 3(11): e396.http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396

Wow Hollie! You actually have scientific content I can respond to in a scientific manner relevant to thread theme. Thank you for the cut and paste - though I thought you didn't like cutting and pasting? And thank you for quoting our literature - another thing I thought you didn't like! Granted, you are misrepresenting our literature which is likely why you linked to an anti-JW website when our literature can be found in context on our website. I should also thank you for posting an example of evolutionist fraud ironically accusing us of being inaccurate!

So where do you want me to start? How about concerning the iron-sulphur 'world'/environment not used by most chemical evolutionists in their synthesis experiments?

But first, since you have cut and pasted a source which misrepresents our literature, I should post what our literature says about abiogenesis specifically of the simplest possible living cell. Your link quotes our 1985 book but does not state a link to it so the reader can see the context. Here is the link, first to the 35 year old book (is it out of date?):

Creation (ce) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Note that we update our literature as further research demands it - just as in the case of scientific literature (like the postulated early earth atmosphere at the origin of life). Noteworthy is the fact that your source does not reference our updated 1998 book on the same subject here:

Creator (ct) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Nor our even more up-to-date 2010 brochures on the origin of life here:

Origin of Life (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

and:

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

In my next post I will address the specific quote your source says is in error - meanwhile, why not actually read the context and our updates?

I will be glad to discuss science matters but would request that you use verifiable science sources to frame your arguments. The creationist agenda of using sources derived from creationist websites assumes you have a bias. That bias is openly acknowledged within a "statement of faith" that is common among the creation ministries.

Your sources above being a creation ministry literally requires your content meet a predefined agenda. Multiple links to Watchtower Bible Tract literature serves what purpose? I understand the JWs are among the most aggressive and heavy handed at proselytizing, but biological evolution is a science matter not a religious one.

As you claim above that the Watchtower literature is updated as research demands it, please identify what research the JW's actually perform. Be specific and identify the lab work, papers published, authors of those papers and the science journals they submitted to. Is there any science body that uses JW research material in peer reviewed journals?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.

So true! And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life. It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion with biological evolution and "abiogenesis," roughly equivalent to the origin of life. It is quite simple to point out that evolutionary biology is the study of life, and not the origin of life. And, there is no particular reason that evolutionary theory need be concerned with the origin of life.

Claims to a supernatural chemist are rather pointless when the supernaturalists can offer no rational argument for such a supernatural chemist.

So, the molecules of life were known to be quite ordinary matter. Astronomers discovered that not only were these carbon compounds common throughout the solar system, they are common through out the universe.

The discussion of the earliest molecular catalysis, peptides, genetic material, and (don't forget) lipid membranes, goes far beyond what the supernaturalist creationists can attribute to their supernatural creator chemists but I can point out that nothing in chemistry has ever been shown to have supernatural / magical elements.

Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

 

[Hollie]

Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.

So true! And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life. It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion with biological evolution and "abiogenesis," roughly equivalent to the origin of life. It is quite simple to point out that evolutionary biology is the study of life, and not the origin of life. And, there is no particular reason that evolutionary theory need be concerned with the origin of life.

Claims to a supernatural chemist are rather pointless when the supernaturalists can offer no rational argument for such a supernatural chemist.

So, the molecules of life were known to be quite ordinary matter. Astronomers discovered that not only were these carbon compounds common throughout the solar system, they are common through out the universe.

The discussion of the earliest molecular catalysis, peptides, genetic material, and (don't forget) lipid membranes, goes far beyond what the supernaturalist creationists can attribute to their supernatural creator chemists but I can point out that nothing in chemistry has ever been shown to have supernatural / magical elements.

Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

There are many plausible theories, supported with varying amounts of verifiable data that support a fully natural, rational explanation for the emergence of life on the planet. Biological evolution after the emergence of life is not in question among the relevant science community with supported data.

Please identity a plausible theory for supernatural creation. Please identify a plausible theory for your gods as opposed to theories proposed by others for their gods.

Something like a "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" would be helpful.

 

[Newtonian]

Ok, Hollie - here is the context of the misquote of our 1985 book (not just page 44 but also pp. 45-49 on the same subject:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Your source claims p. 44 has these words:
"The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."

Those words are not found on p. 44 which you would have known if you hadn't simply cut and pasted this example of fraud by evolutionists - in this case anti-JW evolutionists.

What does page 44 actually say?

"18. How realistic are the odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance?

18 The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

19. What chance is there of getting the needed enzymes for a living cell?

19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”⁠13

20. Why does the membrane needed by the cell add to the problem?

20 However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠14"

References:

12. The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.
13. Evolution From Space,by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981 , p. 24.
14. New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
15. Evolution From Space, p. 27.

Guess why we only quote sources from prior to 1985! And please note that there are many probability (technically correct term for "chance") calculations factoring in more or less steps required for the amino acids in a protein. The simplest result, printed in our more recent literature is: 10^21.

So one could say our literature says the probability is 10^21 or 10*113 or 10^40,000 - all of this would be correct but missing the detailed source of those numbers, Interesting that your source does not even dare to print any probability calculation or result.

I'll give you time to actually read our more up-to-date literature which quotes more recent scientific sources - if you dare! I posted the links above, btw.

 

[Hollie]

Ok, Hollie - here is the context of the misquote of our 1985 book (not just page 44 but also pp. 45-49 on the same subject:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Your source claims p. 44 has these words:
"The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."

Those words are not found on p. 44 which you would have known if you hadn't simply cut and pasted this example of fraud by evolutionists - in this case anti-JW evolutionists.

What does page 44 actually say?

"18. How realistic are the odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance?

18 The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

19. What chance is there of getting the needed enzymes for a living cell?

19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”⁠13

20. Why does the membrane needed by the cell add to the problem?

20 However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠14"

References:

12. The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.
13. Evolution From Space,by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981 , p. 24.
14. New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
15. Evolution From Space, p. 27.

Guess why we only quote sources from prior to 1985! And please note that there are many probability (technically correct term for "chance") calculations factoring in more or less steps required for the amino acids in a protein. The simplest result, printed in our more recent literature is: 10^21.

So one could say our literature says the probability is 10^21 or 10*113 or 10^40,000 - all of this would be correct but missing the detailed source of those numbers, Interesting that your source does not even dare to print any probability calculation or result.

I'll give you time to actually read our more up-to-date literature which quotes more recent scientific sources - if you dare! I posted the links above, btw.

I saw no date that supported your claim that there was any misquote.

So, we're still left with the usual creationist claims that "the odds are too great" when the creationist ministries offer nothing to support that claim. Can you provide some evidence of the JW's research that supports a claim of "the odds are too great" is supportable in the context of literally billions of chemical interactions over the course of millions of years?

Claim CB040:
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

CB040: Left-handed amino acids

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
Response:

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
   
   
2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
   
   
3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
   
   
4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

Links:
Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP

References:

1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595.
2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.
3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389: 234-235.
4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234.
5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151.
6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltani and M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801.
7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.
8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523.
9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News and Events | Scripps Research
10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.

 

[Hollie]

While we're waiting, I'm hoping we can get a response to an earlier request to identify the research being undertaken by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. It would be helpful to know what research and teaching universities are sponsoring their research.

Are there any articles published in the journal Nature, for example, that have presented works by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?

 

[Hollie]

Life: How did it get here? By evolution or creation?
Reviewed by a former Jehovah's Witness
Corey Carroll

Review of JW book, _Life_, by a former Witness

Life: How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Copyright 1985. Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.

First, some background: The Jehovah's Witnesses are basically old-earth creationists; that is, they interpret "day" in Genesis to mean a time period longer than 24 hours. Second, this book is the primary book the JW's use in their campaign to fight evolution. Third, the JW's don't get politically involved in things, so it is unlikely that they will pressure the teaching of "scientific creationism" in schools.

This is the book that really changed my faith in the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion who have the "Truth". Earlier, about 5 years ago, I and my family had studied this book in weekly bookstudies, held at believer's houses. Each study lasted an hour, and usually 10 or 12 paragraphs were covered in each study.

This was the book that made me a firm creationist. Until I started reading talk.origins.

The book is divided into two main parts. The first part details the standard 'problems with evolution' arguments, in an attempt to prove creationism (something which is logically invalid). The last part of the book reveals the true motives behind the book. Look at what the last chapter, "What Choice Will You Make?", on page 248, paragraph 5 has to say:

Do not be surprised that the theory of evolution has become so widespread in modern times despite the evidence against it. The real message of this belief is that there is no God, that he is unnecessary. From where would such a monumental lie originate? Jesus identified the source when he said: "The Devil... is a liar and the father of the lie."-John 8:44.

Thus, the motives of the book are to show that basically, evolution is a Satanic theory. My own father has used this tactic on me, telling me that I have been "tricked" by Satan and his demons, and the demonic influence of college, talk.origins, and all other sources of evolutionary knowledge. He has even quoted scriptures to me such as Colossians 2:8, Matthew 11:25, 1 Corinthians 1:19, Isaiah 29:14, and 1 Corinthians 3:19.

At first glance, you can see that the book is lacking in informational content. It is written on an 8th grade level. Over half of the book is devoted to pretty color pictures, as opposed to words. Little quotes are cited on the margins of the pages, such as : "The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones" (p.85), and "Why did 'inferior' apes and monkeys survive, but not a single 'superior' 'ape-man'?" (p.84)

The pictures of life on earth are depicted as noble, wonderful, God-like. Look at the pictures of humans. A particularly humorous picture is the one on page 33, showing the animals that were created on day 6, supposedly exactly the same as the 'kinds' today (they have a modern-day elephant, giraffe, bear, dog, tiger, rabbit, and a cow). Another humorous picture is on p.34, with a depiction of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Note the makeup on Eve. I guess God created her with lipstick and eyeliner, eh?

The 'meat' of the book is laregly contained in the following chapters:

• 2. Disagreements About Evolution - Why?
• 4. Could Life Originate by Chance?
• 5. Letting the Fossil Record Speak
• 6. Huge Gulfs - Can Evolution Bridge Them?
• 7. "Ape-Men" - What Were They?
• 8. Mutations - A Basis for Evolution?

Chapter 1, "Life - How Did it Start?" is just introductory and contains little useful information. After acknowledging that creationism isn't really a science, however, it tries to prove that evolution is not a science either, because no one can "really tell" what happened in the past. Nothing original here.

Chapter 2 is particularly notorious in its misleading use of quotes. By selective quoting, the chapter makes it appear as if evolution is a science on the verge of collapse. This sets up the rest of the arguments in the book to disprove evolution. Most of the quotes only are dealing with questions on how evolution happened, and the tempo and mode of evolution, not the fact of evolution happening.

Chapter 3, "What Does Geneis Say?", is especially funny. Apparently it is their "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Notable in this theory is that they do not claim that all life was created in six literal 24-hour days. Rather, they claim that each Genesis "day" could have encompassed millenia. However, I have heard some Witnesses say that the dinosaurs were killed off in the flood, and Jehovah started getting the earth ready for life a mere 48,000 years ago (implying that all life has been created within 48,000 years), due to their interpretation of a Biblical "day" as 7,000 years. However, they believe that man is only 6,000 years old.

Chapter 4, "Could Life Originate By Chance?" contains the usual probability arguments against abiogenesis. After making it look like evolution depends upon a theory of biogenesis to make it complete (which it does not), it quotes Hoyle's Evolution From Space and even an Impact pamphlet for its probabilities. The arguments in this book are based on the assumption that for life to have started would require a modern-day cell with DNA, proteins, enzymes, etc. No thought is given to the evolution of the cell from simpler elements.

Chapter 5, "Letting the Fossil Record Speak", asserts that evolution predicts:

1. Very simple life forms gradually appearing
2. Simple forms gradually changing into complex ones
3. Many transitional "links" between different kinds
4. Beginnings of new body features, such as limbs, bones, and organs.

After oversimplifying matters, and neglecting the facts regarding the likelihood of fossilization, they set out to make it look like no transitional forms exist. Notoriously, they attack the evolution of the horse, on bad assumptions that horse evolution is gradual and continuous, is progressive, and leads from the changing and replacement of one "kind" of animal to another (Eohippus to Equus).
Chapter 6, "Huge Gulfs - Can Evolution Bridge Them?" expounds upon the differences in vertebrates, namely, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. It is an example of the "we don't understand how a [wing, beak, eggshell] could have developed, therefore it didn't happen" argument. In particular, they claim that Archaeopteryx is not a transition from reptile to bird, because it has feathers, and not scales. They fail to note the reptile-like skeletal features of Archaeopteryx, of course, because it is contrary evidence that they do not want to deal with.

Chapter 7, "'Ape-Men' - What Were They?" sets about to prove that none of the early hominids were transitional or ancestral to Homo sapiens. It harps on Piltdown man, and the speculative nature of different artist's representations of ancient skulls in real life, while ignoring the trends in enlargement of brain case, changes in teeth, and the changes in the shape of the face. Notable, too, is the drawing on page 94 of the Australopithecus skull, chimpanzee skull, and the human skull. IMHO, the chimpanzee skull is not drawn accurately; where are the large pointed teeth?

Also, it tries to discredit radiocarbon dating that gives ages greater than 6,000 years to man, using the views of Robert Gentry, a six-day creationist (although making it look like it is from a reputable "scientific journal"- see p. 96). It also tries to explain away earlier hominids as degenerate races of Homo sapiens.

Chapter 8, "Mutations - A Basis for Evolution?" uses one of the worst arguments in the whole book. First of all, they make it look like all mutations are deleterious. In reality, there is a spectrum of mutations, ranging from deleterious to neutral to beneficial. In addition, a mutation that is deleterious in one environment could be advantageous in another environment. Next, they use this argument, which is based on a false assumption:

In his book, The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: "Most mutations are for the worse." However, he then asserted: "In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward." But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you? (p.101-102, par. 9)

This argument does not apply, because we are dealing with populations, not individuals. As computer programs show, natural selection works. No evolutionist is saying that any one organism suddenly gets 1000 good mutations and evolves "upward". Rather, species develop relatively few mutations, and over time, the ones that are advantageous to survival propagate through the gene pool. The neutral ones become distributed by chance, and the deleterious ones are selected against.
The rest of the book is devoted to proving the existence of God by using the argument from design. The next chapters talk about the wonderful universe, the conditions on earth that make life possible, the design of living things (ignoring, of course , the horribly bad design in many living things), animal adaptations, instinct, and finally, the "Human Miracle". Then the book goes into chapters such as "Why Do Many Accept Evolution?", and "Can You Trust the Bible?" After establishing the "reasons" people believe in evolution, and the inerrancy of the Bible, they set out their basic JW doctrines (resurrection, eternal life on earth, etc etc) and try to convince the reader to become a convert.

All in all, I give the book a horribly bad rating. Useful information in the book is probably on the order of 5%. I have read much better creationist books, such as Darwin on Trial.

 

[Hollie]

Here we have more misinformation from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with no supporting data. There is no expectation that any of the creation ministries perform research and publish data but specious claims from creation ministries which presume an expected bias simply lend no credibility to such opinions.




Claim CB050:
Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. Since it has not been observed in the laboratory, it is not science.

CB050: Abiogenesis is speculation?

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 50-52.

Response:

1. There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:
   • research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
   • synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
   • research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
   • synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).
2. See also the references and suggested readings with Primitive cells are too complex, Abiogenesis experiments assume a reducing atmosphere, DNA needs proteins to form, proteins need DNA, Amino acids are left-handed,

References:

1. Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
2. Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
3. Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
4. Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
5. Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
6. Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. University of Glasgow - Research - Research units A-Z
7. Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/stuffof.jsp

Further Reading:
RESA. n.d. Origins of life. http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

Wächtershäuser, Günter. 2000. Life as we don't know it. Science 289: 1307-1308.

Deamer, D. W. and J. Ferris. 1999. The origins and early evolution of life. [the table of contents of the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere and related information] http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~deamer/home.html

 

[ChemEngineer]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

 

[ChemEngineer]

So one could say our literature says the probability is 10^21 or 10*113 or 10^40,000 - all of this would be correct but missing the detailed source of those numbers, Interesting that your source does not even dare to print any probability calculation or result.
.

Those figures in bold are large numbers, NOT probabilities. ONE IN each of them would be a probability as you well know. Let us be precise. 10^-21 or 10*-113 or 10^-40,000.
The range of probabilities is always between 0 and 1.

 

[Hollie]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Yeah. One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe." Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives. Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.

You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you! By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both. Fascism is thoroughly Leftist. Read Liberal Fascism, if you're man enough. I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads "IN GOD WE TRUST" ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha

Religious extremists fail to understand that the slogan "in god we trust" was a disassembly of the separation of church and state under Eisenhower in the 1950's during the cold war. The Founding Fathers motto of "E Pluribus Unum" was changed to "In God We Trust" and placing "Under God" in the pledge-- both done in the 1950's and contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.

ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I wouldn't care if our currency said, "All Hail Caesar," as long as it spends.

 

[Weatherman2020]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.

Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.

 

[Hollie]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.

Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.

Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?

 

[Weatherman2020]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.

Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.

Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?

I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.

 

[Hollie]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.

Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.

Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?

I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.

You're ascribing human attributes to rocks as you do your gods. Do you spend time worshipping rocks like you do your gods?

 

[Weatherman2020]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.

Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.

Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?

I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.

You're ascribing human attributes to rocks as you do your gods. Do you spend time worshipping rocks like you do your gods?

It’s hilarious how your religion can’t admit how crazy your beliefs are.

 

[Hollie]

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.

Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!! It was a round rock yanno.

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.

Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.

Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?

I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.

You're ascribing human attributes to rocks as you do your gods. Do you spend time worshipping rocks like you do your gods?

It’s hilarious how your religion can’t admit how crazy your beliefs are.

My beliefs are crazy?

You worship rocks and believe they write music.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Atheist Nonsense (But I repeat myself)

1. "Atheism is growing!" See there. More and more smart and rational people are joining our side.
This nonsense neglects the fact that Christianity is THE largest group of humans on earth. Atheists don't want to admit that because it detracts from their argument of how wonderful it is that their numbers are growing. This nonsense also neglects the fact that atheist families rank lower in retaining their beliefs than virtually any other religion, (30%) according to a Pew Survey.

2. "Who made God, huh, huh, huh!"

"If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University

3. "We're smarter than you fundies, we're more rational, and more scientific."

This is the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, while PRESUMING to be authorities which atheists clearly are not.
“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University
There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. - Robert Jastrow
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries. - Robert Jastrow