Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[matthew809]

So how do you explain the difference between a child and their parents?

Obviously, God created this child using the parents as artistic inspiration.

Just kidding. I side with mainstream science on this matter.

 

[davewhite04]

Obviously, God created this child using the parents as artistic inspiration.

Just kidding. I side with mainstream science on this matter.

I know you have great faith and I respect that, it makes me smile.

If science annoys you, forget about it. The people you are trying to reach are actually in the right, just stick to mainstream science. Evolution is happening all around you, think about it, it's like poetry.

EDIT: Do not mix evolution with creation, 2 separate subjects.

 

[matthew809]

...every time someone claims that "X is impossible!" (X being the formation of amino acids without life, or simple self-replicating molecules, or the formation of a lipid membrane) a scientist comes along and demonstrates how that is possible.

I agree.

However, those people claiming certain things has nothing to do with things that I may be claiming.... no more than my claim is any more connected to yours.

When you have a string of, say, a dozen possible things that have to happen in a row - and they are possible enough that they can be readily re-created - the odds of that happening in nature can be calculated, and is far from impossible.

I agree.

 

[matthew809]

I know you have great faith and I respect that, it makes me smile.

If science annoys you, forget about it. The people you are trying to reach are actually in the right, just stick to mainstream science. Evolution is happening all around you, think about it, it's like poetry.

EDIT: Do not mix evolution with creation, 2 separate subjects.

OK.... but...

Some of your posts confuse the heck out of me

 

[Captain Kremmen]

First of all, the universe had to begin.
Then the universe had to make structures, atoms etc, capable of bonding and storing information.
I can't understand why structures that contain information try to preserve that information by duplicating themselves.
Perhaps that is linked to how the universe itself began,
or is the reason why the universe began.

Unless the universe was of the type it is, we wouldn't exist.
Either that is chance, or the universe came into being because it could generate life.
Could preserve increasing amounts of organic information.

The other explanation is that we are part of a multiverse, which is as unprovable as creationism,
and some of the people who propose it just as biased.

I haven't got a proper theory, just an inclination to think that the universe has a lot more secrets to divulge.

 

[iceaura]

But by definition, these events are disconnected from each other.

No, they aren't.

The moment you try to connect them together, into a single chain of dependent events, within a finite time-frame and space, you have an exponentially less probable scenario with each event that you haphazardly add.

No, that's an error in assumed probability calculation. Dependent events often become more likely with each one, not less. That's a critical feature of the mathematical foundations of Darwinian theory.

But I used to be a believer in the theory of evolution. I used to ponder the exact same descriptions that you just wrote about the universe... and I still do. Why do evolutionists constantly feel the need to explain the rationale behind their beliefs, as if it's something so very complex? You haven't enlightened me... I figured this stuff out a long time ago. Please give me just a little credit.

You do not understand the theory of evolution now, as is clear from the various incomprehensions and mistakes in your posts here. So what are we to make of your claim that you used to "believe" in it?

I can't understand why structures that contain information try to preserve that information by duplicating themselves.

That's backwards. What happens is: The structures that duplicate themselves thereby preserve whatever information they contain.

 

[davewhite04]

OK.... but...

Some of your posts confuse the heck out of me

Now you're making them look like fools by not replying!

 

[matthew809]

Dependent events often become more likely with each one, not less. That's a critical feature of the mathematical foundations of Darwinian theory.

So based on that logic, at this latter stage of "dependent events" on earth, we should be able to see improbable acts of evolution everywhere. New organs should be popping up all the time.

It's funny how the forming of life from scratch via basic laws of physics are seen as so very probable by evolutionists, yet this supposedly fundamental creative aspect of the universe can not be naturally simulated to even the smallest degree on the most powerful computer systems in the world.

 

[davewhite04]

So based on that logic, at this latter stage of "dependent events" on earth, we should be able to see improbable acts of evolution everywhere. New organs should be popping up all the time.

It's funny how the forming of life from scratch via basic laws of physics are seen as so very probable by evolutionists, yet this supposedly fundamental creative aspect of the universe can not be naturally simulated to even the smallest degree on the most powerful computer systems in the world.

blimming heck boy, you replied!

 

[Bells]

Began where exactly?

Earth is about 3.5 billion years old and the universe is about 14 billion years old.

4.54 billion years old.

 

[Jason.Marshall]

"All is mind and the mind knows only creation not reality" "Subjectivity"

 

[davewhite04]

4.54 billion years old.

i blocked you so i didn't see that...

 

[billvon]

So based on that logic, at this latter stage of "dependent events" on earth, we should be able to see improbable acts of evolution everywhere. New organs should be popping up all the time.

They are. See this flying squirrel below? (actually a mouse) He's growing a wing. That "wing" sticking out is just an extra ulna, but it lets him glide just a little better.

In another ten million years he may look a lot more like a bat than a squirrel. Or he may never develop it because there's no niche for a slightly better flying squirrel.

It's funny how the forming of life from scratch via basic laws of physics are seen as so very probable by evolutionists, yet this supposedly fundamental creative aspect of the universe can not be naturally simulated to even the smallest degree on the most powerful computer systems in the world.

Not only can we simulate it, we have actually created the basics of life (self-replicating molecules that eat, reproduce and inherit their structure from their progenitors) in the lab.

 

[davewhite04]

gotta love the flying squirrel! bring them BACK!

 

[davewhite04]

I meant bring them BACK use dna of a squirrel - lizard - dove. Go science Go!*seriously*

 

[davewhite04]

First of all, the universe had to begin.
Then the universe had to make structures, atoms etc, capable of bonding and storing information.
I can't understand why structures that contain information try to preserve that information by duplicating themselves.
Perhaps that is linked to how the universe itself began,
or is the reason why the universe began.

Unless the universe was of the type it is, we wouldn't exist.
Either that is chance, or the universe came into being because it could generate life.
Could preserve increasing amounts of organic information.

The other explanation is that we are part of a multiverse, which is as unprovable as creationism,
and some of the people who propose it just as biased.

I haven't got a proper theory, just an inclination to think that the universe has a lot more secrets to divulge.

perhaps i pulled the moon from my ass in another "plane" of existence? i kept a straight face.

 

[Rav]

But I used to be a believer in the theory of evolution. I used to ponder the exact same descriptions that you just wrote about the universe... and I still do. Why do evolutionists constantly feel the need to explain the rationale behind their beliefs, as if it's something so very complex? You haven't enlightened me... I figured this stuff out a long time ago. Please give me just a little credit. I have actually advanced from what I would consider a simple-minded paradigm. Just because I have come to a different conclusion than you, that does not make me small-minded.

I'm sorry but small-minded arguments come from small-minded people. And your arguments are indeed small-minded here. If you'd like to present a different face on these forums then I suggest you try to elevate yourself above them.

Your billions/billions/billions analogy is fine for showing how one extremely unlikely event, with enough time and space, is actually inevitable. And you could even go ahead and apply this same reasoning to any unlikely event... and another event, and so on. But by definition, these events are disconnected from each other.

And as if your previous failings weren't enough this complete and utter nonsense betrays yet another deficiency in your thinking: an ongoing failure to appreciate the fundamental nature of matter. It doesn't want to do random things at the macroscopic scale, it wants to bind and cohere into ever more complex states. And in case that wasn't obvious to you already, which it really should be by now, I linked you to a specific proof that is highly relevant to the context of this discussion. Clearly you didn't bother to peruse it, and if you did you have nonetheless failed to address the salient point about the capacity of certain molecules to transform into more complex configurations given changing environmental conditions (which happen to be even more stunning examples of the precursors to the emergence of life than those produced by the many experiments that have come before it). In the end you simply don't realize that the universe has rigged all the draws in favour of emerging complexity and this is why you're still off with the fairies regarding your probability objection.

The moment you try to connect them together, into a single chain of dependent events, within a finite time-frame and space, you have an exponentially less probable scenario with each event that you haphazardly add. And unfortunately for the theory of evolution(and apparently unknowing to evolutionists), the number of events in this chain are enormously beyond reason. In other words, an inevitable scenario becomes an impossible one.... and I realize this may be hard for an evolutionist to understand.

I ask you: how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're not even cognizant of one of the most fundamental features of the fabric of the universe itself?

 

[davewhite04]

I'm sorry but small-minded arguments come from small-minded people. And your arguments are indeed small-minded here. If you'd like to present a different face on these forums then I suggest you try to elevate yourself above them.



And as if your previous failings weren't enough this complete and utter nonsense betrays yet another deficiency in your thinking: an ongoing failure to appreciate the fundamental nature of matter. It doesn't want to do random things at the macroscopic scale, it wants to bind and cohere into ever more complex states. And in case that wasn't obvious to you already, which it really should be by now, I linked you to a specific proof that is highly relevant to the context of this discussion. Clearly you didn't bother to peruse it, and if you did you have nonetheless failed to address the salient point about the capacity of certain molecules to transform into more complex configurations given changing environmental conditions. In the end you simply don't realize that the universe has rigged all the draws in favour of emerging complexity and this is why you're still off with the fairies regarding your probability objection.



I ask you: how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're not even cognizant of one of the most fundamental features of the fabric of the universe itself?

Your writing skills are phenomenal man...

 

[James R]

davewhite04:

You still remain a prick, a thorn in sciforums side, the sooner you fuck off the better.

Nice to meet you, too, davewhite. We have barely exchanged two words with one another, yet here you are breaching the site rules by insulting me. You should chat with tali89. You two would no doubt get on like a house on fire.

If you have specific issues you'd like to raise with me, please start a private conversation and I'll talk to you about them. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the personal insults. If it turns out that you're unable to act like a good Christian and treat people with common courtesy, then I'll have to start enforcing the site rules. I'll let you off this time, but only because it's me you chose to insult. If this was anybody else, I'd be issuing warning point to you.

Run along now.

Edit to add: Ah, I see that Bells actually gave you a warning. Fair enough. And...

I'm sure James R is thick skinned enough to not take my comment to heart. You just need to remember it wasn't directed to you as I wouldn't waste my time.

EDIT: Apology to James R for being a man and taking my quip on the chin.

I get insulted often enough here that there aren't many insults that I take to heart.

I thank you for your apology, but I'd suggest that next time you want to make a "quip" you should flag it more clearly, or else somebody might not get the "joke".

 

[matthew809]

And as if your previous failings weren't enough this complete and utter nonsense betrays yet another deficiency in your thinking: an ongoing failure to appreciate the fundamental nature of matter. It doesn't want to do random things at the macroscopic scale, it wants to bind and cohere into ever more complex states. And in case that wasn't obvious to you already, which it really should be by now, I linked you to a specific proof that is highly relevant to the context of this discussion. Clearly you didn't bother to peruse it, and if you did you have nonetheless failed to address the salient point about the capacity of certain molecules to transform into more complex configurations given changing environmental conditions (which happen to be even more stunning examples of the precursors to the emergence of life than those produced by the many experiments that have come before it). In the end you simply don't realize that the universe has rigged all the draws in favour of emerging complexity and this is why you're still off with the fairies regarding your probability objection.

I am fully aware of matter's ability for self-organization and rearrangement. But all you are doing is extending this basic concept indefinitely, without proof.... or as you said: "it wants to bind and cohere into ever more complex states". Building a self-replicating molecule in the lab proves what exactly? Showing that these molecules have a tendency to change proves what?

Simply calling something a precursor to life because it happens to be similar to the building blocks of life is faulty logic. And even if something is defined as a precursor to life, this precursor may only stay a precursor until a designer comes along and builds it into life. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm saying it may be the case. It needs to be proven one way or the other.

Have scientists seen the emergence of spontaneous information in the lab?