Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you a Young Earth Creationist? Your quote in your OP is from the Institute for Creation Research.

I am a young earth creationist actually. But a lot of that comes from my textual understanding of both hebrew and greek. I've studied both languages under a professor of Greek here in st. louis.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I am a young earth creationist actually. But a lot of that comes from my textual understanding of both hebrew and greek. I've studied both languages under a professor of Greek here in st. louis.

So let me get this correct, you actually the think the universe is only a few thousand years old? Adam and Eve are literal and you believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical flood tale?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So let me get this correct, you actually the think the universe is only a few thousand years old? Adam and Eve are literal and you believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical flood tale?

Yes, I do.

And your use of the term 'actually' makes me realize you are likely going to consider this stupid. Once again, why can't we just give the academic nod (theists and atheists both). There are very intelligent people on all sides.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Yes, I do.

And your use of the term 'actually' makes me realize you are likely going to consider this stupid. Once again, why can't we just give the academic nod (theists and atheists both). There are very intelligent people on all sides.

I've been informed that many of you will now discount what I saw as foolish from now on because I have the 'audacity' to believe in a young earth.

First, let me say. If that is the case and you do this, then you are actually the close minded one. Let the argument speak for itself. I wouldn't consider myself an expert in these matters, but I am educated (more than most). So I'm interested in having hopefully a respectful and intelligent conversation over this.

Originally posted by KellyJay
May I ask why you reject all theistic thoughts and doctrines with respect to
'spirits'? Seems like you cut yourself off from something that could be very
important, and you put up blinders that would shield you from the ability
to even acknowledge any truth that may be there.
Kelly

I cannot affirm the robustness and thus the inherent reality of “spirits” because I have no way to make them accessible, detectable, measurable, derivable and defineable in a variety of independent ways, in the range of non-interventive observation or measurement to logical derivation. Therefore, although the certainty of my mind is inferior to the factual experience, the seeming existence of the “spirits” in my opinion still belongs to the phenomenal world, and as such there are nothing more than mere appearances that arise dependently on the conventional level –to me they are just reflections lacking of inherent existence, which when are used can smarten my own appearance. I see a distinction between a manner of argument as regards the “spirits” which dogmatically asserts conceptual formulations to be exact descriptions of a separate and completely describeable reality, and a manner which considers that theoretical argument is a means of employing conceptual tools to elucidate aspects of reality towards a greater meaning of the interconnected process of what is appearing as “reality”, that is😵

Originally posted by divegeester
Good grief you're irritating. It's bloody obvious what I'm contesting.

No, it is not. Please state which part of what I said you dispute.

Originally posted by KellyJay
After reading this again, you believe your mind when it comes to the
universe and if you believe it/think it is what it is, because you came up
with it? I had my eyes checked the other day, blind spots are part of our
lives they are built into them, and if you have closed off something as not
worthy of looking at so you reject them, you created your own blind spot.
Kelly

My mind is the interface I use to decode the huge hologram known as observer universe, and I refute both "existence" and "non-existence" of the phenomena it perceives; as regards the "spirits", from certain single perspectives they are to me either existent or non-existent; from both perspectives they are to me neither existent nor non-existent; since they don't exist as they appear they are non-existent, and since they appear in such way they are existent😵

Originally posted by King Tiger
And what is wrong with lengthy quotes, at least I have backing (from academics) that you lack.

The lengthy quotes do not answer my question. They do not address what you said in your OP.
I can address each of your quotes one by one and you will simply produce more quotes without admitting that the previous ones were wrong.
I want you to stick to one single probability calculation and one single argument and we will go into it in detail and see if it is correct. As I said before, this is mathematics we are dealing with and there is a definite right or wrong answer. The only possible point of disagreement is whether the model being calculated is relevant to evolution.

So pick one particular calculation and explain what the model is, how its relevant to evolution and what probability was calculated.
I would have prefered to use the OP, but feel free to pick a new one. But once chosen, I want you to either convince me the calculation is correct and that it applies to evolution, or I want you to admit that it is incorrect, or doesn't apply to evolution.

Give me an honest open intelligent argument, and I'll consider responding.
I am more than happy to, once you give me a well formed case. Your OP example is a mess. Its not at all clear what you are calculating or why.

You are not academically open. I see this, and don't appreciate how you just assume I misunderstand. You clearly do not understand mathematics (maybe have an undergrad level of it) but are no mathematician yourself, otherwise you would at least recognize the soundness of the math and the question at hand if not be persuaded by it.
Yes its easy to claim I don't understand, not surprising given that your OP is not clear. But this is easy to resolve, just clarify your OP. I am more than happy to go through each and every little bit of the maths and learn it from you if necessary.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I've been informed that many of you will now discount what I saw as foolish from now on because I have the 'audacity' to believe in a young earth.

First, let me say. If that is the case and you do this, then you are actually the close minded one. Let the argument speak for itself. I wouldn't consider myself an expert in these matters, but I am educate ...[text shortened]... ost). So I'm interested in having hopefully a respectful and intelligent conversation over this.

An ancestor of mine simply pointed out that
Ai aristai dokousai einai physeis malista paideias deontai😵

Originally posted by black beetle
My mind is the interface I use to decode the huge hologram known as observer universe, and I refute both "existence" and "non-existence" of the phenomena it perceives; as regards the "spirits", from certain single perspectives they are to me either existent or non-existent; from both perspectives they are to me neither existent nor non-existent; since t ...[text shortened]... xist as they appear they are non-existent, and since they appear in such way they are existent😵

I have a little brother I love dearly, a long time ago the joke was this
was Todd's world and we were just a part of it, it seems to me you have
taken that to a whole new level. 🙂

Originally posted by King Tiger
Yes, I do.
And your use of the term 'actually' makes me realize you are likely going to consider this stupid. Once again, why can't we just give the academic nod (theists and atheists both). There are very intelligent people on all sides.

You should examine the geological evidence. You clearly have not done so intellectually.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lengthy quotes do not answer my question. They do not address what you said in your OP.
I can address each of your quotes one by one and you will simply produce more quotes without admitting that the previous ones were wrong.
I want you to stick to one single probability calculation and one single argument and we will go into it in detail and see i ...[text shortened]... n happy to go through each and every little bit of the maths and learn it from you if necessary.

Correct if I'm wrong, but you are largely talking about the process of speciation-the idea that breeding populations can split into two separate non-genetically related groups. Dawkin's says Speciation begins by accident." (1) Dare I impose the term random chance?

Yet, this is not what I'm talking about. As remarkable as speciation would be if it did occur, which I contest it does not. Point to a modern scientifically observed speciation please-I'd be more than happy to hear of it and then see who was the Nobel winner for discovering it or creating it.

What I am talking about is the mathematical probability that the individual cell and then cells would evolve as they are. And how you keep missing this point is beyond me. Well, actually it's not as Dawkin's misses it too calling it "skeptical backlash" (2), yet this doesn't really answer the question to just discount it. The evidence deserves a better verdict than calling it mere speculation, especially when many of your foremost mathematicians and scientists give it great weight.

So you asked for a specific example. So I'm pulling out math here.

Consider building L-proteins. A simple model would be thus:

124 proteins with 400 amino acids each (3). Now, with basic genetics knowledge we know that 19 of the 20 amino acids can be in either the L-configuration or the D-configuration, which means they possess a 50:50 ratio called racemization. So taking just 19 of 20 amino acids the calculation is thus

(400 x (19/20)) x 124 = 47,120 each with a 1/2 probability.

So approximating:

0.5 ^ 47,120 = 10 ^ -14,184 which equals a basic probability of 0.00% meaning. Or speaking in terms of calculus, the limit approaches zero. Is it mathematically impossible? No, not technically. But is it mathematically improbable? Yes! And not just a 50%, 25% or even 5% or 1%. This number contains more zeros after the decimal before you reach 1 (after nearly 15,000 zeros) than I can fit in this whole post.

So a very simple process of natural selection, L-protein mutations is untenable, and yet this is only 1 function within the complex cell and functioning organism is made up of millions such platforms! Also, notice I'm assuming each mutation of each protein and amino acid is successive and successful. So I'm being very generous.

This was not my original calculation because honestly I was inferring to any calculation within mathematics is untenable for Darwinism. What Dawkins does is he suppresses the mathematical evidence, or does Darwin deny the biological necessity of the L-protein to the cell? Or does he deny that one of the most basic configurations contains 124 proteins with 400 amino acids each with a 50:50 ratio of racemization? This is biological fact. And if you tell me it isn't, remember I'm an M.D. I guess I should go back to med school....

Please also realize that the model above is way too simple to even begin to describe the actual process necessary to form cells. This is the most bare bones model possible and yet it shows a remarkable complexity. All calculations and numbers were confirmed in (4) below.

Also, the formation of L-configurations is very relevant to evolution. Most organic organism cannot function without L-configurations. They had to evolve at some point, and what was the mathematical probability that this occurred? This is what I'm speaking to.

I hope that clears this up largely. Also, I know the math is correct as it is very simple and it also was published in a scientific journal, that would be a huge guffaw for scientists to make-to mess up basic statistics.


(1) Dawkins, Richard. Big Ideas: Evolution. "New Scientist." No. 2517. 17 Sept. 2005.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Glass, John, Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Nina Alperovich. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. "PNAS" 103, no. 2:425-430. 2006.

(4) Ibid.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have a little brother I love dearly, a long time ago the joke was this
was Todd's world and we were just a part of it, it seems to me you have
taken that to a whole new level. 🙂

May Todd, You and Yours Be Always Happy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
May Todd, You and Yours Be Always Happy😵

Wish nothing but that for you too my friend!!
I still wonder why you cut off that which you cannot control by rejecting
it as you do. I'd think that simply having so many others on the planet
expressing belief and with some suggesting contact, that you'd have
to at least give the benifit of doubt instead of rejection.
Kelly

Originally posted by caissad4
You should examine the geological evidence. You clearly have not done so intellectually.

Well, please point me to a good source if that is the case. I'll admit, I'm no geologist, nor have any wish to be. But, I will say many catastrophists point to Mt. St. Helens as a very tenable pillar in their case. I've also heard of petrified wood extending through several layers of geological strata (periods or whatever). But I'm open to a good source if you have one on hand.