The Physics Professor Poses Darwinian Question to Students

[TNHarley]

there was no basis for your question since I didnt bring up a god,, and I never said I had one of my own,,

why is it evo's always bring up god when their theory falls flat??

Nothing fell flat.
The premise is you cant create life, correct? Fine. We cant create life, yet.
What would be the point of bringing this up? A god.
My question then goes to, who/what created god?

 

[TNHarley]

Your question assumes something not in evidence.

Its a statement.

 

[Slade3200]

Who designed and made your god?

I think a guy name Carl… I forget his last name

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Its a statement.

Your statement asserts something not in evidence. Question or statement, it is absurd and not
at all based in science.

 

[TNHarley]

Your statement asserts something not in evidence. Question or statement, it is absurd and not
at all based in science.

Ummm i know. Its based on the bible

 

[rightwinger]

Who designed and made your god?

Tesla

 

[progressive hunter]

Nothing fell flat.
The premise is you cant create life, correct? Fine. We cant create life, yet.
What would be the point of bringing this up? A god.
My question then goes to, who/what created god?

lack of an answer doesnt prove evolution right,,,

 

[alang1216]

I met a physics professor and we had a cordial conversation regarding Darwin's Tautology: "Organisms survive because they're fit and they're fit because they survive." This isn't right. It isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The physicist posed the question to every class: "How long would it take for a warehouse full of Tesla parts to assemble themselves?"

:::: crickets chirping ::::::::

It is of course a rhetorical question, because it is abundantly clear that no warehouse full of Tesla parts would ever assemble themselves. However there is a far more subtle point which I deduced and gave to the professor after giving his brilliant question a thorough analysis.

How long would it take for all of the parts to design themselves, gather the thousands of different raw materials, process and refine themselves so that they all conform perfectly in a finished product, and then transport themselves to the one warehouse in the world? THIS is a far more impossible task than the 10,000 different parts assembling themselves, which is of course impossible.

With the schematic plans for a Tesla, we can build one. With the schematic plans of a single-celled animal, we cannot. So much for Darwinian nonsense.

Same old strawman argument, debunked since Darwin's day. Evolution is NOT a random process so calculating probabilities based on that is flat out wrong.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I love how people scrap the bottom of the barrel to certify their religious views but turn and run when you ask why their god created plants before the sun

Nobody is scraping the bottom of any barrel except you.
I'm not running.

You atheists lie and fabricate things and then giggle at your lies and fabrications and call yourselves intellectual and "scientific."
Oh and "rational."

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Note to TNHarley the atheist Giggle Boy:

"Light" does NOT mean light bulbs. Got it?

"Light" as in the sun. Try science for a change instead of ignorant and badly misplaced condescension.

 

[ChemEngineer]

You got a better idea?

The rhetorical question posed in the OP does not refute Darwinism.

To deny Darwinism is I think ridiculous. Evolution is the overwhelming consensus as the explanation for how life evolves. It doesn't mean that God did or didn't create all life, if he did then maybe he used evolution as the means to allow life to adapt and change. It's still a theory, not proved. As such, it can be and maybe should be challenged. But the rhetorical question used in the OP is IMHO pretty dumb.

You clearly have no concept of the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis, which is the prime requisite of all life.

This is a schematic drawing of cytochrome-C, a polypeptide of approximately 500 amino acid residues in length. Its synthesis, whether very fast, or very slow, involved the precise addition of one specific amino acid after another, to the chain being constructed. Since there are 20 different amino acids in human polypeptides, the probability of assembling this sequence in the correct order is 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20…. 500 times. This equates to 1 chance in 10 to the 650th power.

Moreover, this calculation does not even take into account:

1. The probability of folding the chain in a precise manner
2. How L-amino acids were isolated from a racemic mixture of both D and L components (They respectively rotate plane-polarized light right, and left.)

The very hateful and militant evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, claims that any event with a probability of 1 in 10 to the 40th power is “impossible.” One chance in 10 to the 650th power is hundreds of orders of magnitude more impossible than Dawkins’ definition. But wait, it gets worse. Much, much worse.

This is only one of thousands of polypeptides (proteins and enzymes) in the human body. And many of those are much larger than a 500 link sequence. The largest is titin, a protein in muscles, which is 33,450 amino acid residues long.

Please tell me what is 1/20 to the 33,450th power?
And this is just for ONE PROTEIN. ONE of 10,000 or more.

Oh it gets worse. Each step in the original synthesis, according to your sophisticated Charles Darwin, had to be useful, to be "selected." That's one hell of a lot of useful intermediaries and why don't we see them elsewhere, performing those "useful" functions for which they were *selected*, hmmmm? You don't because it's all archaic nonsense.

 

[TNHarley]

lack of an answer doesnt prove evolution right,,,

I agree.
You obviously dont want to answer that question as it destroys your ridiculous position in this thread, so i will drop it.
See you around, homie!

 

[TNHarley]

Nobody is scraping the bottom of any barrel except you.
I'm not running.

You atheists lie and fabricate things and then giggle at your lies and fabrications and call yourselves intellectual and "scientific."
Oh and "rational."

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Note to TNHarley the atheist Giggle Boy:

"Light" does NOT mean light bulbs. Got it?

"Light" as in the sun. Try science for a change instead of ignorant and badly misplaced condescension.

Im not an athiest. Im just not a moron.
So he created light from the sun, before the sun?

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree.
You obviously dont want to answer that question as it destroys your ridiculous position in this thread, so i will drop it.
See you around, homie!

just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean I didnt answer,,

 

[ChemEngineer]

Nothing fell flat.
The premise is you cant create life, correct? Fine. We cant create life, yet.
What would be the point of bringing this up? A god.
My question then goes to, who/what created god?

YOU fell flat. There is no question or challenge you can pose or even imagine that has not been previously answered.

"If someone made God then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University, the Motto of which is:
"The Lord is our Light."

 

[TNHarley]

just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean I didnt answer,,

You didnt answer. As i said, its all good.

 

[TNHarley]

YOU fell flat. There is no question or challenge you can pose or even imagine that has not been previously answered.

"If someone made God then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University, the Motto of which is:
"The Lord is our Light."

So life cant be created by nothing, but your god can? More of that "faith" malarkey, ey?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Im (sic) not an athiest. (sic) Im (sic) just not a moron.
So he created light from the sun, before the sun?

Nothing you have written would suggest a degree of intellect, rationality, or sophistication you intimate and pretend.
You make absurd statements and then giggle at yourself.
I have no time for any more of your nonsense.

"The heavens," specified in Genesis 1:1 would, to any thinking person, include the stars and our sun. They provide light.

To my Ignore List you go.
ciao brutto

 

[progressive hunter]

So life cant be created by nothing, but your god can? More of that "faith" malarkey, ey?

at least they claim its faith,, not like the evo's that claim fact without evidence or proof,,

 

[TNHarley]

Nothing you have written would suggest a degree of intellect, rationality, or sophistication you intimate and pretend.

but saying god created light from the sun before the sun was created is so fucking genius right?
Moron

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Who designed and made your god?

O.k. That was just one mistake.

I did a much better job the second time around.