Creationism = Dark Ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ricmat said:
The calculations are extensive, and are done by many different independent sources. The book is primarily about the development of proteins, RNA, DNA from non-living (i.e. non-replicating) matter. There are extensive discussions of “probabilistic resources” which to make the calculations easy assume the whole universe, even stars, intestellar matter, etc.

The bottom line is that even relatively simple proteins, of length 200-500 have no chance of forming randomly even with the entire universe working on it, at planck speed, over the entire life of the universe. It’s short by a few hundred orders of magnitude in terms of probabilistic resources. And you can’t draw on “since only the successful ones replicate” since there IS NO self replication with these “simple” proteins.

And a whole nother story is the probability of a single cell forming.

The book is not devoted to discussions of evolution from single cell to more complex creatures.

Truly, if you have an open mind, you should find the book to be interesting. And in any case the “historical” presentation of how science is conducted is interesting even if you don’t buy the main premise of the book.
Click to expand...
And this equation is secret and not available to the public who doesn’t purchase the book? I’ve seen claims such as this made- “there’s no way I could happen, too many things!” but again, that’s no sufficient. Nobody has thought to place this calculation online?
 
buffalo said:
DNA is a code. We do not find codes in nature. They are the product of a mind.
Click to expand...
Code and design are human concepts- the equivalent of saying “The Grand Canyon is beautiful, so it must have been designed by an entity that understood beauty”
 
tjm190 said:
Code and design are human concepts- the equivalent of saying “The Grand Canyon is beautiful, so it must have been designed by an entity that understood beauty”
Click to expand...
Codes need a sender a key and a receiver.
 
buffalo said:
The DNA code is a language.
Click to expand...
Not really- the fact that the atmosphere ‘knows’ to form a hurricane to ‘correct’ climate imbalances does not mean that theirs an intelligent force behind it. Your misapplying human concepts to nature.
 
Handrail_Screw said:
The video also discussed the book “of pandas and people.”

I don’t need to read the book for i understand the methods scientists follow to arrive at the great theories like evolution.

When one wants to further research in a field of science you don’t just make up a question. There are strict guidelines one must follow, this is the essence of productive scientific research. This is not taught until one studies beyond degree level, hence why 99.9999% of post grads accept evolution.

Quite simply, ID is NOT science.
Click to expand...
It’s obvious that you don’t know anything about ID, therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read the book I recommended, then we’ll have something intelligent to discuss.

The book actually goes into the different scientific methods that are commonly used - and I do mean COMMONLY used, including those used by darwinism.
 
Handrail_Screw said:
Not true, self replicating molecules are capable of synthesizing on their own, which are in turn capable of evolving into cells.
Click to expand...
O lord help us. Ignorance speaks with a loud voice.

Calculate the odds of coming up with a self-replicating molecule - e.g. a simple protein.- and I’m not talking about salt or crystals. Because they replicate the same thing over and over. Which is not what you need to come up with something new.
 
Handrail_Screw said:
Lucky for us that chemicals don’t react randomly 🙂
Click to expand...
The founder of “Chemical Evolution” has disavowed that theory, a long time ago. Perhaps you haven’t heard.

And we’re not talking “chemicals” as in elements. We’re talking about very complex modules that need to become complex enough to replicate. That’s really complex. Read the book.

Of course, if you’re talking about non-random in the sense that the reactions are being “guided” instead of random - well, I agree with you on that.
 
tjm190 said:
Not really- the fact that the atmosphere ‘knows’ to form a hurricane to ‘correct’ climate imbalances does not mean that theirs an intelligent force behind it. Your misapplying human concepts to nature.
Click to expand...
Let me explain:

Hurricanes and such are natural patterns.

Designs are based on language and symbols. They come from a mind.

Designs can contain patterns. But natual patterns do no contain symbols or language and do not come from a mind.
 
Handrail_Screw said:
DNA is part of nature, so we most defiantly do find codes in nature.
Click to expand...
Did you realize that there are codes within codes in DNA? For example, if you take a length of DNA which produces a significant result in the cell, and offset the starting point for the replication by 1 “byte”, then sometimes it produces ANOTHER different but significant result. This is not something that comes together as a working unit without some sort of intelligent guidance.

Read the book.
 
tjm190 said:
And this equation is secret and not available to the public who doesn’t purchase the book? I’ve seen claims such as this made- “there’s no way I could happen, too many things!” but again, that’s no sufficient. Nobody has thought to place this calculation online?
Click to expand...
Come on now. This is ridiculous. You’re just making yourself look bad with this sort of nonsense. The book is publicly available. Probably at your local library (or they would order it for you if you asked them to). The references in the book may or may not be online, I don’t know, but they are listed for anyone to see.

You seem to be saying that they put the answers in a book, but they’re trying to keep it secret because they didn’t put it online. That’s crazy talk.
 
tjm190 said:
Not really- the fact that the atmosphere ‘knows’ to form a hurricane to ‘correct’ climate imbalances does not mean that theirs an intelligent force behind it. Your misapplying human concepts to nature.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see anyone claim that an intelligent force is behind hurricanes. Who is misapplying what here?
 
ricmat said:
Come on now. This is ridiculous. You’re just making yourself look bad with this sort of nonsense. The book is publicly available. Probably at your local library (or they would order it for you if you asked them to). The references in the book may or may not be online, I don’t know, but they are listed for anyone to see.

You seem to be saying that they put the answers in a book, but they’re trying to keep it secret because they didn’t put it online. That’s crazy talk.
Click to expand...
I’m just saying that with all of the easily falsifiable refutations of evolution being so widespread online ("why didn’t recorded history start until just a few thousand years ago?’/"Second law of thermodynamics!!!1!11’), I find it difficult to believe this one has not circulation. I’ve googled ‘odds of evolution’ enough times to know that nobody really has any math to back up their numbers. I’ve see “scientist Y says the odds are this! So ha!” but scientist Y’s formula (wrong term, I know) has never been made available and is therefore moot.
 
tjm190 said:
I’m just saying that with all of the easily falsifiable refutations of evolution being so widespread online ("why didn’t recorded history start until just a few thousand years ago?’/"Second law of thermodynamics!!!1!11’), I find it difficult to believe this one has not circulation. I’ve googled ‘odds of evolution’ enough times to know that nobody really has any math to back up their numbers. I’ve see “scientist Y says the odds are this! So ha!” but scientist Y’s formula (wrong term, I know) has never been made available and is therefore moot.
Click to expand...
So I give you a good reference to find the answer you’re looking for, but instead you google the answer (and can’t find anything satisfactory, and know that since you haven’t’ found it yet, that it will never exist), therefore you are right and I’m wrong.

That’s quite a scientific method you’re using there :rolleyes:
 
ricmat said:
So I give you a good reference to find the answer you’re looking for, but instead you google the answer (and can’t find anything satisfactory, and know that since you haven’t’ found it yet, that it will never exist), therefore you are right and I’m wrong.

That’s quite a scientific method you’re using there :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That and checked the catalog of the area libraries- none available and I’ll have to request a copy when I manage to dig up my library card. I’ve yet to come across any knowledge in a book that hasn’t found its way to the internet however- especially information as valuable as this!

And the lack of proof wouldn’t make me right, it would just make your point with respect to probability moot.
 
Handrail_Screw said:
Not true, self replicating molecules are capable of synthesizing on their own, which are in turn capable of evolving into cells.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a peer reviewed, scientific reference that supports this claim?

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top