This Should Silence Atheists Who Believe In Blind Evolution

[Kommander_Kink]

One atheist biology scientist said something in a 1990's copy of the Watchtower Magazine that should silence the most ardent and fanatical evolutionist. This is what he said;

The notion that amino acids and the building blocks of life combined in perfect sequence, in perfect chemistry, in perfect temperature to create life and the sorroundings that abated it to have been just perfect, is akin to placing a bomb besides a box of blank paper and a gallon of ink and the subsequent explosion creating the unabridged version of the Encyclopedia Britannica with its 22 volumes and every single word in the english language written with its perfect definition and not a single misspelled letter on it, that's the mathematical coincidence that would been relatively neccessary for life to been created blindly by mere chance.

This thread is to Highly Technical as the OP is to Mensa.
Hence the thread has been moved to OT
-Admin DrPizza

 

[TuxDave]

Luckily, evolution doesn't work that way where everything came out in the final form on the first try.

 

[sandorski]

Have you heard about the banana?

 

[DanDaManJC]

Source?

Also... you realize that evolution says nothing of life's origins? This isn't shifting goal-posts either, it's you making a strawman attack on the theory.

edit:
oic, source is watchtower, JW people. either way, so what do you want to discuss? abiogenesis (the theory of how life actually came about, primordial soup falls into here) or the process of evolution?

 

[Dankk]

OP doesn't know what "evolution" actually encompasses, nor its implications (or lack thereof).

 

[Kommander_Kink]

OP doesn't know what "evolution" actually encompasses, nor its implications (or lack thereof).

Yes I do sir, evolution is inseparable from the notion that life created itself by mere chance, it's a by-product, denying it would be like saying that Vista OS has no correlation to Windows 3.1, even the suggestion is preposterous.

Therefore those that believe that life was formed in a prehistoric amino soup billions of years ago are evolutionists not creationists.

 

[Gibsons]

Hello Phineas.

 

[Dankk]

Yes I do sir, evolution is inseparable from the notion that life created itself by mere chance

No, no you don't. You just used "chance" to describe evolution. Evolution =/= chance.

I think you're also using "chance" as a synonym for "in absence of intelligent design". Because of this, you believe improbability is evidence of design, which is erroneous.

Evolution by natural selection is a process that has taken place over the course of hundreds of millions of years, very gradually, but very finely. As it's name suggests, it is "selective". While we as living organisms are very improbable indeed, we are the result of millions of permutations taking place in a long time, ruling out what doesn't work, and propagating what does. As a result we are fine-tuned into the complex, "improbable" humans we are today.

Also,

You realize that evolution says nothing of life's origins?

 

[Howard]

Are you stupid or just ignorant?

*note that regular HT rules do not apply to this thread

 

[beginner99]

boring...

Explaining Evolution to a creationist is is more of a waste of time than trying to explain your pet the new sandy bridge architecture.

 

[silverpig]

I am embarrassed for my country today.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Yes I do sir, evolution is inseparable from the notion that life created itself by mere chance, it's a by-product, denying it would be like saying that Vista OS has no correlation to Windows 3.1, even the suggestion is preposterous.

Therefore those that believe that life was formed in a prehistoric amino soup billions of years ago are evolutionists not creationists.

That doesn't make any sense. All evolution describes is how... given some start point that it doesnt explain... more varied life came from that start point. God could've created that start point... it couldve been from a primordial soup. Whatever.

For you to try and assert that evolution and "shit just randomly happens" is a clear indication that you do not understand the premise of the scientific theory of evolution at all. This is not me saying that evolution is 100% fact and you're completely wrong, because I say so, rather, you clearly have no understanding, whatsoever as to what the theory even says. if you did, you'd would know that abiogenesis and evolution are two, very separate theories.

Let me try framing this another way. If I were to reject Christianity based on the false premise that Jesus was a child molester -- and thus clearly not the Son of God / mankind's perfect Savior -- would you not call me out on my error? Then what if I continued to believe this premise, even after presented with the facts, I'm not saying I would have to become Christian, but rather that my premise, by definition is totally wrong (by biblical and historical account) would you not scoff at me?

This is exactly the kind of error you're making right now. And many other creationist-type people make the same error... if you can't see why someone who doesn't share your beliefs would get very ticked off about this type of fallacy, then I'm not sure it's worth my time to continue this discussion.

 

[Ninjahedge]

KK, your statement is too blunt, off center, and does not directly apply.

The thing that is always amazing is that people are willing to start playing Las Vegas roulette when talking about evolution, siting the chance of a random sequence occuring that would produce life as we know it today, but then never get into the "chance" of an omnipotent deity just "being there".

Religion, in essence, is the denial of any explanation. It is a conglomeration of genuine miracle with unexplained events and general ignorance that has bothe blessed and cursed mankind since he was intelligent enough to call a stick a stick.

I am not denying the existance of a God, just really annoyed at the narrow minded Creationists who do not truly understand what they are talking about trying to disprove a theory that pokes holes in the comfy blanket of ignorance they have been wearing to shield them from the reality that the world is more complex than a cadre of Angels and Demons playing dietal politics with the chessboard of man.

It is just another way to make the Angel Food Cake tell us all that we are the most important critters in the Universe.

 

[Ninjahedge]

As for Abiogenesis, figure this:

Take one cubic centimeter of "soup".

Lets say that the "soup" was 10X more complex in its components than simple H2O, but still was about the same weight (for ease of calculation).

H2O = 18 atomic units. 18g/mole. 1cc of water = 1g therfore 1cc = 1/18 mole.

1 mole = 6.022 x10^23

6.022x10^23 / 18 / 10 = 3.346x10^21 molecules per cc. Lets just say that you have a .0.001% chance per molecule of a combination occuring sproadically in there that produces something different each day. That means 3.35x10^16 random generations a day per cc.


Now take that over millions of GALLONS over a few thousand years or so.

3.34x10^16 x 365 x 5000(years) x 3785 cc/gal x 10,000,000 gallons (a small portion of the soup worldwide) = 2.31x10^33 combinations.

That is a conservative estamate.

Now figure winning the MegaMillions (a lottery that has been likened to the odds of you being struck by lightening twice on the same day, etc etc), is about 1 in 175 million (wiki search, YMMV).

That number of occurances would basically match the odds of hitting the Mega Millions 4 times in a row.

The whole thing about odds making in something like this is that the numbers you use are so subjective you can make the odds fly in one direction or another. Yes, the odds of a random combination happening are astronomical, it is just lucky that we have more chains than grains of sand and more time than life has even existed to get a few strands that do more than just sit there.

Now, as for the math, you see how sketchy my estamates were?

Where are the numbers for this "mathematical coincidence" that they are describing? How did they estimate the odds of a bomb writing the Encyclopedia Brittanica? How could they estimate the patterning of the ejectile? How could they figure out the distances and placement?

This comparison is useless. If you start comparing the chances of random creation, you need to talk numbers and compare it to something that is a definite probability, not something that is a fallacious impossibility.

 

[CycloWizard]

Did you really post this in HT, or did someone move it here? Either way, quoting from a religious periodical to support or reject a scientific hypothesis doesn't belong here.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It doesn't?


I thought that that article was very succinct and factual!!!!!


>wark<

 

[Kommander_Kink]

Take one cubic centimeter of "soup".

1 mole = 6.022 x10^23

6.022x10^23 / 18 / 10 = 3.346x10^21 molecules per cc. Lets just say that you have a .0.001&#37; chance per molecule of a combination occuring sproadically in there that produces something different each day. That means 3.35x10^16 random generations a day per cc.


Now take that over millions of GALLONS over a few thousand years or so.

3.34x10^16 x 365 x 5000(years) x 3785 cc/gal x 10,000,000 gallons (a small portion of the soup worldwide) = 2.31x10^33 combinations.

Where are the numbers for this "mathematical coincidence" that they are describing? How did they estimate the odds of a bomb writing the Encyclopedia Brittanica? How could they estimate the patterning of the ejectile? How could they figure out the distances and placement?

My friend you could blow up a billion bombs every minute for 1 billion years besides a pile of paper and a jug of ink and none of them would be able to produce an Encyclopedia Britannica with all its entires and definitions in alphabetical order. Your math is good, the only thing is that the circumstances to be just right for the right combination are not going to wait a billion years for your formula to produce results. Just 1 or 5 degrees change in temperature will render your entire 3.34x10^16 x 365 x 5000(years) x 3785 cc/gal x 10,000,000 gallons (a small portion of the soup worldwide) = 2.31x10^33 useless in a matter of 24 hours.

And even if your formula worked and really produced that first living, splitting cell how do you explain it forming and organizing to produce the birds of the sky, evey genre of fish and mammals? No I don't think so, we were created by an intelligent, superior being, also all evidence shows that we humans just spontaneously "appeared" somewhere in the not too distant past. Nobody has webbed feet or wings to suggest that evolution exists in a way that can completely alter us, also if we evolved from apes there would be half-ape men, something between the mutation, or apes would not exist at all.

Let me hear you atheists and evolutionists try to explain that one.

 

[CycloWizard]

My friend you could blow up a billion bombs every minute for 1 billion years besides a pile of paper and a jug of ink and none of them would be able to produce an Encyclopedia Britannica with all its entires and definitions in alphabetical order. Your math is good, the only thing is that the circumstances to be just right for the right combination are not going to wait a billion years for your formula to produce results. Just 1 or 5 degrees change in temperature will render your entire 3.34x10^16 x 365 x 5000(years) x 3785 cc/gal x 10,000,000 gallons (a small portion of the soup worldwide) = 2.31x10^33 useless in a matter of 24 hours.

And even if your formula worked and really produced that first living, splitting cell how do you explain it forming and organizing to produce the birds of the sky, evey genre of fish and mammals? No I don't think so, we were created by an intelligent, superior being, also all evidence shows that we humans just spontaneously "appeared" somewhere in the not too distant past. Nobody has webbed feet or wings to suggest that evolution exists in a way that can completely alter us, also if we evolved from apes there would be half-ape men, something between the mutation, or apes would not exist at all.

Let me hear you atheists and evolutionists try to explain that one.

Your post is nonsensical rambling based on ignorance. If you want to have a real discussion, post something definitive. Are you arguing the case against abiogenesis or against evolution by natural selection? They are two completely separate topics which you conflate, again, out of ignorance.

 

[Anteaus]

I'm going to throw this in. There is a reason why science will always trump religion when it comes to conjecture like this, and it has nothing to do with truth or faith. The simple fact is that science is based on observation, theories and prediction. Obviously there is theoretical physics which in some ways is no more potent than your average bible story, but those theories are still derived from other theories that have been proven emperically

No one knows what kicked off the big bang (assuming that was in fact the start of it), but we know what followed it, and have tons of data to support current theories including evolution. What do creationists have? The bible. Even if the bible was correct, it is only once source of information, and anytime your source is limited as such it is considered suspect and arbitrary.

No one can deny that Jesus walked the earth and said a bunch of cool things about how we should live together in harmony, but with zero supportive data (much contridictary data exists) the bible becomes a book on philosophy and should not be used to describe the literal world. Even alternate forms of the bible as well as other religious texts tend to disagree with each other. There is no concensus.

I'm not telling people of faith what to believe, but please don't use the bible as evidence to contridict well established biological mechanisms. Considering it was written by people who lived in a world where heresy was considered a capital crime and religion was absolute, how can we possibly look at this book objectively? I might as well get my science from the back of a Captain Crunch cereal box for all the scientific potency it carries. .02

 

[Kommander_Kink]

Your post is nonsensical rambling based on ignorance. If you want to have a real discussion, post something definitive. Are you arguing the case against abiogenesis or against evolution by natural selection? They are two completely separate topics which you conflate, again, out of ignorance.

Against abiogenesis.

Basically I'm saying that you could leave a soup mixed of chemicals for a billion years and it won't produce that "spark" of life, and let's not get into the details how those chemicals reached there or were created because then we will open another pandora box..

 

[Paul98]

He doesn't want to have a discussion or bother to learn about any of the stuff he talks about. Just ignore and move on, this one is hopeless.

 

[Anteaus]

Against abiogenesis.

Basically I'm saying that you could leave a soup mixed of chemicals for a billion years and it won't produce that "spark" of life, and let's not get into the details how those chemicals reached there or were created because then we will open another pandora box..

Just because your mind can't accept it doesn't mean things don't take place. Your assuming it all happened over a very short period of time. The earth is approx. 4.6 billion years old and the Archean Eon lasted for amost 1.5 billion years. Theres time there for many many many "chances" to spark. I agree it seems inconcievable, but trust me once you wrap your mind around geologic time and how things came to be you would understand that even the most extrodinary things have taken place.

 

[CycloWizard]

Against abiogenesis.

Basically I'm saying that you could leave a soup mixed of chemicals for a billion years and it won't produce that "spark" of life, and let's not get into the details how those chemicals reached there or were created because then we will open another pandora box..

Then stop bringing evolution into the discussion as it is completely unrelated. Abiogenesis may or may not be possible. Even if it is possible and someone creates life in a lab somewhere, that does not prove or disprove that that is the mechanism by which life was created originally on Earth or anywhere else.

 

[Kommander_Kink]

I'm not telling people of faith what to believe, but please don't use the bible as evidence to contridict well established biological mechanisms.

I am not, but your biological mechanisms doesn't explain to me a lot of things. I'm using my own brains of analyzation and have scoured my sorroundings, I have pondered at the beauty of a nice-looking female, of a daisy flower, the birth of a child, of how timely the Sun shines above us and sets down at the end of the day, how a tree grows out of NOTHING and provides us fruits for our sustenance, how a human brain is "self-aware" and is able to build things that exceeds our bodily capacities (such as flying). Deducing from all these observations I have concluded that the universe and us are not the product of a blind explosion, something superior and intelligent built it.

How can something that blindly and randomly came into existance in some organic soup (first cells) billions of years ago be able to form and produce a living being (fetus) and form it for 9 months until it comes out as a human being? These blind dumb cells also produced every genre of animal species out there too? No I don't think so.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I am not, but your biological mechanisms doesn't explain to me a lot of things. I'm using my own brains of analyzation and have scoured my sorroundings, I have pondered at the beauty of a nice-looking female, of a daisy flower, the birth of a child, of how timely the Sun shines above us and sets down at the end of the day, how a tree grows out of NOTHING and provides us fruits for our sustenance, how a human brain is "self-aware" and is able to build things that exceeds our bodily capacities (such as flying). Deducing from all these observations I have concluded that the universe and us are not the product of a blind explosion, something superior and intelligent built it.

How can something that blindly and randomly came into existance in some organic soup (first cells) billions of years ago be able to form and produce a living being (fetus) and form it for 9 months until it comes out as a human being? These blind dumb cells also produced every genre of animal species out there too? No I don't think so.

Your hatred for atheists has made you even more susceptible to lies.
Just accept that life needs to happen and that there is no need for an intelligent form of control as you state. Everything you look at, you look with your own eyes. You need to learn to see with a broader view. Without a need to explain. Because you cannot explain what you do not want to see.