Again - prove it
As Cred would say where is your OSE?
|
Again - prove it
As Cred would say where is your OSE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I was going to make the same argument, so happy to see MichaelB has saved me the trouble. Nice.
De Maria's argument that pebbles are not ordered but DNA is is exactly wrong. The DNA is not ordered. The difference is that it's self reproducing and because many other different non-ordered arrangements of DNA have not survived, we are left with the many (many) that have happened to survive.
It's as if 100 pebbles fell to the beach in a random pattern, and then the tide came in and out and washed away all the pebbles below the high tide mark, leaving dozens of pebbles above a sharp line of demarcation. We would come back and see a line of pebbles, so neat. That's how selection works too. But it doesn't mean God made the line of pebbles -- or a particular sequence of DNA.
But in order for the first fuctional reproducing cell to come about that exact DNA sequence has to come about in the first place.
Then how did mrna, ribosomes, amino acids coordinate with these "pebbles."
Are you waiting for a chimp to come up with Shakespeare? :D
Here is more scientific things to ask yourself
Do 68 Molecules Hold The Key To Understanding Disease?
Not only do you have to get nucleic acids, but lipids and glycans as well as proteins.
Are you waiting for a tornado to build a house? :D
Enough chimps and enough typewriters, why not? Especially when the works that don't fit get taken out with the tide so to speak.Quote:
Are you waiting for a chimp to come up with Shakespeare?
Excellent parable!!Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
:)
Wow? You saw a picture of Jesus made by the wood grain? That is pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Now, do you consider it a miracle? Or do you think this type of picture will be regularly duplicated by unthinking, inanimate wood grain throughout the world?
Just because you say so?Quote:
Complex random chemical reaction follow the same law of order as the pebbles and it's these complex chemical reactions that created life.
But again, that is speaking against the evidence. The pebbles did not create complex patterns. You attributed the pattern to the existing pebbles. Otherwise you would be able to see the same pattern reproduced over and over. But you won't.
Only humans can assign patterns and copy patterns in this world.
Sincerely,
De Maria
It isn't? Well, lets go back to our wiki:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses.
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do you get instructions without order?
Just like that? Its self reproducing? Is it magic? Or how does an inanimate unintelligent matter decide to "self reproduce"?Quote:
The difference is that it's self reproducing
Ooooh! By accident. Have you calculated the possibility that something like that could happen by accident?Quote:
and because many other different non-ordered arrangements of DNA have not survived, we are left with the many (many) that have happened to survive.
It is absolutely zero.
Why sure it does. God gave the laws of physics that affect what happens to the pebbles in the wave motion.Quote:
It's as if 100 pebbles fell to the beach in a random pattern, and then the tide came in and out and washed away all the pebbles below the high tide mark, leaving dozens of pebbles above a sharp line of demarcation. We would come back and see a line of pebbles, so neat. That's how selection works too. But it doesn't mean God made the line of pebbles -- or a particular sequence of DNA.
But again, you are comparing apples to oranges. When you find an instructional message such as the ones issued by the dna, on the beach, made by the eons and eons of wave action on the sand, then you'll have proof that the actions of inanimate unintelligent matter can produce intelligent instructions.
Lol!! WAIT!! Oh, sorry, I jumped the gun. Then you'll need to provide evidence that unintelligent inanimate matter can respond to that so called intelligent message. :)
Sincerely,
De Maria
De maria perhaps you should study complex chemical reactions in the presence of a catalyst and get back to us.
The other thing that needs to be considered is that the laboratory of the universe is huge. Life the right conditions for life only had to appear once for us to be having this conversation. No matter what the odds against if it is possible it happens in the laboratory of the universe because of the number of chances you have for it to occur. Think about it 125 billion of galaxies each with about 100 billion of stars over 13 billion years. So
125,000,000,000
x100,000,000,000
125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
x13,000,000,000
1,625,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
For give my math if I missed some zeros or added some but you get the idea.
That's assuming there is only one chance a year that life would form. I realize that this isn't a perfect number but it's to give you a scale of just how many monkeys on typewriters we are talking about. The point is that life didn't have to be here. It could have a risen anywhere in the universe and we could still be having this conversation. I know what your going to to say that if life is accident of nature it has no meaning. I disagree with the conclusion but I know your line of thinking. The meaning of life though is not a question that can or should be answered in a science class that is where religion or philosophy belong.
Asking that was a picture of what scientist have called a "Human tail". I got the picture off Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information which is promitent science website that publishes new biological and scientific discovery. Check it outQuote:
Originally Posted by asking
Those pieces of flesh that darwinists claim are remnence of a tail can grow anywhere.
Spinal Cord - Figure 1 for article: The /`human tail/' causing tethered cervical cord
So that argument is invalid.
I don't really want to split hairs on the terms but to me Macroevolution has nothing to do with science or biology so I am not going to use evolutionism synomously with biology. A better term is "Darwinists". So there are biologists like yourself who believe in Darwinism. Darwinists is just a term I use for all believers in Dawanism aka Theory of Evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
:)
[QUOTE]Again these are your beliefs which are consistent with Dawinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Again all this whole argument is not based on facts. For one thing you can not even prove that the earth/universe has been around for billions of years. So your whole arguments is already flawed because it is based upon one unproven assuption over another. What I like to call a "hot air" argument. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Sassy,
The only people who don't agree that the universe has been around for billions of years are people who actively deny knowledge those people are beyond my help.
I can only lead you to the water, I can't force you to drink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
your largest figure is what 10 to the 33 power x [4 x 10 to 9th ], 4 billion years, x [ 10 to the 3rd power - say 1000 day years to keep the math easy ]
=
10 to the 50th power at largest.
compare that to 10 to the 3000th power
and you will realize the mathematical impossibility of chance. :eek:
Quote:
Many Debunking Articles On The Theory Of Evolution by Ecclesia.org + Article "The Theory of Evolution" | Love for Life
18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:
(a) Start with a meaningful phrase.
(b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters.
(c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.
(d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
(e) If it is not, return to step (b).
To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring.To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.
Do a little thought experiment. Take 25 packs of cards. Make each pack different, maybe a different theme or design or whatever, so that each card is unique. Now shuffle them all together. Yes this would be tiring but not altogether impossible. Keep shuffling until you're satisfied that it is as random as possible. Throw cards around and mix them all up good. Make it so that you have had no intelligent input into the order of the cards. Shuffle them without looking at the fronts of the cards, if that helps you.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Now, deal each card out one by one in a long row. What do you think the chances of dealing those cards in that exact order are?
It's somewhere near 1 in 10 to the 3500th power and you just did it first time! Bravo!
What's your explanation of this, if it could not have happened by chance?
work backwards. Because no one knows what really happened.
first:
write down a sequence of 25 x 52 = 1300 cards
second : have a second person, with no knowledge of the sequence you wrote down, :) play 1300 card pick up and see how long it takes to come up with the same sequence you wrote down. They have a 1 in 10 to the 3500th power chance of getting it exactly correct.
Remember the human genome has about 3 billion base pairs.
Thanks for reinforcing the mathematical impossibility of humanity existing due to chance :D ;)
I agree a human cell randomly forming might be mathematically impossible but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the mathematical possibility that the simplest form of a self replicating chemical compound can form. Which may have only originally worked in the presence of a catalyst. That's a completely different than what your talking about.
The other thing you need to remember is that more than one version of order of cards might work as well. Which dramatically lowers your odds. 1 in a 1,000,000 chance suddenly becomes 2 in a 1,000,000 or 1 in 500,000.
The point is none of us know what the odds are that this would happen we can only speculate. It might be that life springs up everywhere there is a liquid median or it could be so rare that life only a rises once every 100 billion year in the entire universe. We just haven't explored enough.
But the universe wasn't working backwards. It wasn't working with an end in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Another way to phrase what you're saying: If you took a (big) bag of 1,000,000 different marbles and picked one out at random, the probability of the marble that you picked is so small that it's statistically impossible. So you're saying that when you pick a marble out, the probability is that you won't have picked a marble out?
If this isn't what you're saying, then please try to explain?
So there is purpose in the universe? What end does the universe have in mind? :confused:Quote:
But the universe wasn't working backwards. It wasn't working with an end in mind.
Since the mathematical odds are 10^3000, we diverge onto philosophizing? :confused:
Remember, a genetic code cannot stand alone, it needs to be in a cell, and there are dozens of other components required in trascription and translation of a genetic code, so take that 10 ^ 3000 and add another couple of orders to it. :eek:
You can have 10 ^ 9 years and 10 ^ 9 galaxies and 10 ^ 9 solar systems and it is still only 10 ^ 27 !
As to the marble or the decks of cards - those are simple. ;)
Do you see a automobile and think - there are billions of years and bilions of days and billions of other planets and think that that automobile came to be simply by chance or some universal end? No, any one knows that an automobile was designed by intelligence.
:rolleyes:
And what exactly was the catalyst? Another unproven hypothesis. ;)Quote:
Which may have only originally worked in the presence of a catalyst
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:46 AM. |