Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[Hollie]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.

You might try understanding the terms you use. The origin of life on the planet is not fully understood. All the basic building blocks of life are abundant in the universe so it may be only a matter of time before the spark of life occurred.

Tell us how your gods made a snake talk to human and scolded them for fruit theft.

The origin of life is fully understood. You just have a problem with coming up with a plausible spin.

Actually, no. Your delicate, hyper-religious sensibilities might be offended but “the gawds did it” is not a viable answer.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Speaking of Silly

Richard Dawkins has stated that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible.

We're not really here, Hollie. Impossible, see? It's all just been in our heads

 

[Hollie]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial. They always shorten the lifespan, always.

I guess you were a graduate of the Henry Morris School for the Silly.

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
   
   The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
   
   
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
   
   
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
   
   
5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

A submissive gene becoming dominate is not a mutation.

Genes mutate. You apparently never had as much as a 7th grade biology class.

 

[james bond]

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds. Someone has done a rough calculation.

Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.

"Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.

Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens vastly more often than it actually does, and suppose …

• …every star has ten earth-sized planets orbiting it.
• …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the formation of a SCESR design. But this SCESR must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)

We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.

Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"

What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?

A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?

www.benotconformed.org

The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth. Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none? Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another. That's why your side has no hard evidence. I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long. Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears. There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too. Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life. You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.

Genes mutate.

Sure, but they do not add new information. All it can do is work with the old information to mutate it. Thus, no macroevolution in however number of billions of years. I don't think our Earth will last that past this century as God has promised Jesus is coming soon.

Is the victory of Joe Biden the start of the Strong Delusion? The Emerging Church is Catholicism. As for your finance, why do you think your privacy is being stolen and then being used to track who you are, where you live, what you do, and what your interests are, and what you would like to do?

"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie. (2 Th. 2:11 NKJV)

The primary focus of the deception is use of the controlled corporate media by the Prince of the Power of the Air. TV, radio, Internet, cell phones, PDAs, etc. keep people completely preoccupied and oblivious to the fate that awaits unbelievers. The goal is also to prevent people from hearing the Gospel of Jesus, and if they do hear it to forget about it and be entertained constantly. Most people in developed countries are now in a fog due to the impact of these media that lull them into a false sense of security and into a false sense of right and wrong. This delusion can be seen in three areas:

• Spirituality, the Emerging Church has become so pervasive that most churches in developed countries will tolerate abortion (murder), fornication (premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality) and almost any other violation of God's law. Just think: how many churches will excommunicate a person for involvement in these sins?
• Finance, many people are unaware that an international government / banking cartel partnership is stealing their wealth and using the funds to control the world. (See How Some Rich Bankers Tricked the American People and Gained Control of the World's Economic, Political, Legal and Educational Systems and 19 Reasons Why The Federal Reserve Is At the Heart of Our Economic Problems, 20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over.) The stealing is done through the printing of fiat money (money not based on gold or silver but on debt), through interest on money that does not exist (due to fractional reserve banking laws) and through the saw tooth effect of markets that draws people into bad investments over a long period of time and then makes them lose large portions of their life savings when markets drop. (See 200 Year Dow/Gold Ratio, and note how it became much more dramatic after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. See also Financial News Updates on this website.)
• Politics, most people are also unaware that the international banking cartel and secret societies have taken over all national governments and are quietly re-organizing borders and power centers throughout the world. Evidence of this can be seen in the 911 deception. People who objectively study the facts realize it was a very successful psychological operation (psyop), since jet fuel is not hot enough to do the job, and even if a pancake effect had happened, it would have been much slower than near freefall speed. It had to be done by controlled demolitions. This was part of a plan to cause a second Pearl Harbor and justify the US military getting a foothold in the Middle East and justify the US government in taking away many constitutional rights of the US people.(For more information, see Pearl Harbor, 911 and the Next 'Catastrophic Catalyzing Event' and )"

The following is a dramatization, but it isn't that far off of what is happening behind the scenes (Note: There are good Catholic believers who believe in Jesus and what God did, so they will be saved. We just don't know about those in power positions and those that follow blindly):

 

[Hollie]

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds. Someone has done a rough calculation.

Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.

"Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.

Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens vastly more often than it actually does, and suppose …

• …every star has ten earth-sized planets orbiting it.
• …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the formation of a SCESR design. But this SCESR must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)

We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.

Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"

What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?

A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?

www.benotconformed.org

The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth. Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none? Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another. That's why your side has no hard evidence. I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long. Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears. There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too. Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life. You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.

“What are the odds?” Is a stereotypical ID’iot creationist meme. It’s shown up repeatedly in this thread.

“The odds against abiogenesis are too great” is rather nonsensical as we know with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. You will insist your various gods are responsible for all of existence but that’s rather silly. There are 33 million gods in Hinduism. That means your three gods have a 3 in 33 million chance of being the real gods, even less when stacked up against the totality of gods which existed before your gods.

 

[Grumblenuts]

James quotes the rebuttal then simply repeats the rebutted nonsense. Innumeracy abounds amongst the determined ID'iocracy.

 

[Hollie]

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds. Someone has done a rough calculation.

Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.

"Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.

Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens vastly more often than it actually does, and suppose …

• …every star has ten earth-sized planets orbiting it.
• …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the formation of a SCESR design. But this SCESR must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)

We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.

Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"

What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?

A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?

www.benotconformed.org

The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth. Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none? Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another. That's why your side has no hard evidence. I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long. Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears. There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too. Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life. You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.

When cutting and pasting volumes of text, it’s in good form to attribute that material.

It’s also a courtesy to provide others with the source of the material because, as we know, the hyper-religious tend to be rather dishonest in the data and material they use.

A fundamentalist Christian website is hardly the source of reliable science data.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No worries. All will be forgiven in the end..

 

[james bond]

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds. Someone has done a rough calculation.

Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.

"Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.

Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens vastly more often than it actually does, and suppose …

• …every star has ten earth-sized planets orbiting it.
• …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the formation of a SCESR design. But this SCESR must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)

We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.

Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"

What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?

A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?

www.benotconformed.org

The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth. Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none? Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another. That's why your side has no hard evidence. I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long. Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears. There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too. Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life. You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.

When cutting and pasting volumes of text, it’s in good form to attribute that material.

It’s also a courtesy to provide others with the source of the material because, as we know, the hyper-religious tend to be rather dishonest in the data and material they use.

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible Open questions in prebiotic chem

reasonandscience.catsboard.com

I don't have the same search engine nor sources as you. I did post my link where I got the calculations.

What's more important is:
I also want to add that I do not fear atheism at all. Not like that of Catholicism. The atheists are just here to follow along with the changes that the world powers that be bring. To compare it to your ToE, those behind the real power are the mutation. Of course, you have no idea because you're too busy with abiogenesis, ToE, and aliens and the like which isn't really that important. All it means is that atheists and you have been misled and will continue to be misled.

 

[Hollie]

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds. Someone has done a rough calculation.

Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.

"Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.

Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens vastly more often than it actually does, and suppose …

• …every star has ten earth-sized planets orbiting it.
• …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the formation of a SCESR design. But this SCESR must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)

We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.

Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"

What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?

A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?

www.benotconformed.org

The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth. Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none? Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another. That's why your side has no hard evidence. I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long. Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears. There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too. Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life. You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.

Genes mutate.

Sure, but they do not add new information. All it can do is work with the old information to mutate it. Thus, no macroevolution in however number of billions of years. I don't think our Earth will last that past this century as God has promised Jesus is coming soon.

Is the victory of Joe Biden the start of the Strong Delusion? The Emerging Church is Catholicism. As for your finance, why do you think your privacy is being stolen and then being used to track who you are, where you live, what you do, and what your interests are, and what you would like to do?

"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie. (2 Th. 2:11 NKJV)

The primary focus of the deception is use of the controlled corporate media by the Prince of the Power of the Air. TV, radio, Internet, cell phones, PDAs, etc. keep people completely preoccupied and oblivious to the fate that awaits unbelievers. The goal is also to prevent people from hearing the Gospel of Jesus, and if they do hear it to forget about it and be entertained constantly. Most people in developed countries are now in a fog due to the impact of these media that lull them into a false sense of security and into a false sense of right and wrong. This delusion can be seen in three areas:

• Spirituality, the Emerging Church has become so pervasive that most churches in developed countries will tolerate abortion (murder), fornication (premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality) and almost any other violation of God's law. Just think: how many churches will excommunicate a person for involvement in these sins?
• Finance, many people are unaware that an international government / banking cartel partnership is stealing their wealth and using the funds to control the world. (See How Some Rich Bankers Tricked the American People and Gained Control of the World's Economic, Political, Legal and Educational Systems and 19 Reasons Why The Federal Reserve Is At the Heart of Our Economic Problems, 20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over.) The stealing is done through the printing of fiat money (money not based on gold or silver but on debt), through interest on money that does not exist (due to fractional reserve banking laws) and through the saw tooth effect of markets that draws people into bad investments over a long period of time and then makes them lose large portions of their life savings when markets drop. (See 200 Year Dow/Gold Ratio, and note how it became much more dramatic after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. See also Financial News Updates on this website.)
• Politics, most people are also unaware that the international banking cartel and secret societies have taken over all national governments and are quietly re-organizing borders and power centers throughout the world. Evidence of this can be seen in the 911 deception. People who objectively study the facts realize it was a very successful psychological operation (psyop), since jet fuel is not hot enough to do the job, and even if a pancake effect had happened, it would have been much slower than near freefall speed. It had to be done by controlled demolitions. This was part of a plan to cause a second Pearl Harbor and justify the US military getting a foothold in the Middle East and justify the US government in taking away many constitutional rights of the US people.(For more information, see Pearl Harbor, 911 and the Next 'Catastrophic Catalyzing Event' and )"

The following is a dramatization, but it isn't that far off of what is happening behind the scenes (Note: There are good Catholic believers who believe in Jesus and what God did, so they will be saved. We just don't know about those in power positions and those that follow blindly):

Apparently, the link you supplied (https://www.benotconformed.org/odds-of-abiogenesis.htm), is a website belonging to a rather....how shall we say...fundie zealot. His credentials as a mathematician, biologist, statistician are non-existent.

https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-Rusty-Entrekin/e/B01A7ZDM48??tag=usmb-20

Rusty Entrekin has a B.A. in theology from Louisiana College, which has been furthered by a lifetime love of reading, popular science, apologetics, and contemplation.

 

[james bond]

“What are the odds?” Is a stereotypical ID’iot creationist meme. It’s shown up repeatedly in this thread.

“The odds against abiogenesis are too great” is rather nonsensical as we know with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. You will insist your various gods are responsible for all of existence but that’s rather silly. There are 33 million gods in Hinduism. That means your three gods have a 3 in 33 million chance of being the real gods, even less when stacked up against the totality of gods which existed before your gods.

Yet, your side has no hard evidence for abiogenesis nor aliens.

No worries. All will be forgiven in the end..

You're wrong. If the end happens in our lifetime, then there will plenty to worry about. Until something changes such a martial law in the US, then we haven't reached the end and won't in our lifetimes. I don't have a crystal ball to predict everything, but the powers to be are real.

 

[Hollie]

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds. Someone has done a rough calculation.

Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.

"Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.

Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens vastly more often than it actually does, and suppose …

• …every star has ten earth-sized planets orbiting it.
• …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the formation of a SCESR design. But this SCESR must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)

We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.

Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"

What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?

A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?

www.benotconformed.org

The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth. Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none? Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another. That's why your side has no hard evidence. I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long. Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears. There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too. Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life. You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.

When cutting and pasting volumes of text, it’s in good form to attribute that material.

It’s also a courtesy to provide others with the source of the material because, as we know, the hyper-religious tend to be rather dishonest in the data and material they use.

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible Open questions in prebiotic chem

reasonandscience.catsboard.com

I don't have the same search engine nor sources as you. I did post my link where I got the calculations.

What's more important is:
I also want to add that I do not fear atheism at all. Not like that of Catholicism. The atheists are just here to follow along with the changes that the world powers that be bring. To compare it to your ToE, those behind the real power are the mutation. Of course, you have no idea because you're too busy with abiogenesis, ToE, and aliens and the like which isn't really that important. All it means is that atheists and you have been misled and will continue to be misled.

Thanks.

I have work to do.

snake handling churches - Google Search

 

[james bond]

Apparently, the link you supplied (What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?), is a website belonging to a rather....how shall we say...fundie zealot. His credentials as a mathematician, biologist, statistician are non-existent.

https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-Rusty-Entrekin/e/B01A7ZDM48?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Rusty Entrekin has a B.A. in theology from Louisiana College, which has been furthered by a lifetime love of reading, popular science, apologetics, and contemplation.

So what is your point? I think it shows the odds of abiogenesis are very, very, very long. I mean I don't believe the billions of years that Darwin wanted for our galaxy and Earth. Our Earth would not survive a billion years just sitting there waiting for abiogenesis. Look at what is happening in our universe as other galaxies speed away from us and supernovas explode and entire galaxies collide.

 

[Hollie]

“What are the odds?” Is a stereotypical ID’iot creationist meme. It’s shown up repeatedly in this thread.

“The odds against abiogenesis are too great” is rather nonsensical as we know with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. You will insist your various gods are responsible for all of existence but that’s rather silly. There are 33 million gods in Hinduism. That means your three gods have a 3 in 33 million chance of being the real gods, even less when stacked up against the totality of gods which existed before your gods.

Yet, your side has no hard evidence for abiogenesis nor aliens.

No worries. All will be forgiven in the end..

You're wrong. If the end happens in our lifetime, then there will plenty to worry about. Until something changes such a martial law in the US, then we haven't reached the end and won't in our lifetimes. I don't have a crystal ball to predict everything, but the powers to be are real.

Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.

You may see life on the planet as evidence of a 6,000 year old planet resulting from the special magic of supernatural gods, but you have no evidence of those gods and the planet is clearly far older than 6,000 years.

Reasonably and rationally excluding your gods and / or space aliens seeding the planet with biological life millions of years ago, we’re left with a compelling case for life that assumes natural, rational and understandable means.

 

[Hollie]

Apparently, the link you supplied (What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist?), is a website belonging to a rather....how shall we say...fundie zealot. His credentials as a mathematician, biologist, statistician are non-existent.

https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-Rusty-Entrekin/e/B01A7ZDM48?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Rusty Entrekin has a B.A. in theology from Louisiana College, which has been furthered by a lifetime love of reading, popular science, apologetics, and contemplation.

So what is your point? I think it shows the odds of abiogenesis are very, very, very long. I mean I don't believe the billions of years that Darwin wanted for our galaxy and Earth. Our Earth would not survive a billion years just sitting there waiting for abiogenesis. Look at what is happening in our universe as other galaxies speed away from us and supernovas explode and entire galaxies collide.

As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.

Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.



“Our Earth would not survive a billion years just sitting there waiting for abiogenesis”

I have no idea what the above means.




“Look at what is happening in our universe as other galaxies speed away from us and supernovas explode and entire galaxies collide.”

Kinda’ ruins the “fine tuning” argument.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."

Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!

 

[james bond]

Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.

You may see life on the planet as evidence of a 6,000 year old planet resulting from the special magic of supernatural gods, but you have no evidence of those gods and the planet is clearly far older than 6,000 years.

Reasonably and rationally excluding your gods and / or space aliens seeding the planet with biological life millions of years ago, we’re left with a compelling case for life that assumes natural, rational and understandable means.

Okay, I think I understand now. Please don't take it the wrong way, but I just can't get behind that scientifically or religiously. Why? I don't believe any of it is true. If I was a biologist, then I would have to practice false science. There may be parts of my work that I enjoy, but the basic foundation would be something I faked belief in. Sure, I could write papers on it, but my heart wouldn't be in it.

Not magic, but by a supernatural God. It's the only explanation of how things could turn out this way. It clearly explained in the Bible and the Bible explains it in a way that we understand. Then, as a creationist, we find the Bible states it as such. Eventually, one begins to trust what it says in the Bible.

Anyway, I don't think the arguments between creationism vs evolution is that important any more. We will continue to believe what we believe and nothing will change that. Like I said, if I liked biology or some of atheist sciences, then I would have to fake the fundamentals. I can see how someone could pay lip service to that and still enjoy their work. However, it may not last. I dunno.

 

[james bond]

"At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."

Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!

Heh. We talked about it already. It starts with soil carbon. That should be the key. What else was added (by God) to that chemical process?

 

[james bond]

As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.

Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process. That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years. If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath. There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it. My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first. Let's assume it was for a single cell organism. Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive. We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.

Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.

Then why did he need long time? The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox. My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great. You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution. Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.

As for God, life happened first in a garden. Not a warm pond. It all happened in two days.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."

Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!

Heh. We talked about it already. It starts with soil carbon. That should be the key. What else was added (by God) to that chemical process?

Heh. Heh heh.

Search results for query: soil carbon

1. [IMG alt="james bond"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/55/55937.jpg?1445126012[/IMG]
   Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?
   Heh. We talked about it already. It starts with soil carbon.

Don't look now, lazy bones, but psst, hint, hint, pants on fire..