Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by LemonJello
Honestly, I'm really not sure what you mean. I'm also not sure how this is relevant here. If a person is just hunting around for, or outright fabricating, tests that ostensibly confirm "what (he or she) wants to believe is true", then he or she is being intellectually disengenuous, irresponsible, etc, etc. He or she clearly has some problems approachin ...[text shortened]... of studying geological evidence or otherwise mis-prioritizes it within his/her program of study.

I'm not at all suggesting that someone is fabricating anything! I am
saying that getting a result that we have to assume is correct that can
never really be shown as wrong, should be taken with a very large grain
of salt. It may be useful and heartening to see several tests give the
same type of answers, but that too bottom lining it, are assumptions with
just a few more data points.

I know you were addressing King Tiger, and I was addressing you.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Honestly, I'm really not sure what you mean. I'm also not sure how this is relevant here. If a person is just hunting around for, or outright fabricating, tests that ostensibly confirm "what (he or she) wants to believe is true", then he or she is being intellectually disengenuous, irresponsible, etc, etc. He or she clearly has some problems approachin ...[text shortened]... of studying geological evidence or otherwise mis-prioritizes it within his/her program of study.

I don't see how or why if the math doesn't work in his field would he or
anyone else concern themselves with another field giving more time to
not be able to do something.

We are not talking about infinite time to get it right where we always
have eveything required to get it right, in the same place, under the
right conditions, in the proper quanities and so on.

Simply saying oh time can over come that number is turning off one's
brain and not looking at the problem carefully.
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
actually no. not every opinion has merit. one isn't closed minded if he dismisses magic (as portrayed in D&D) as foolish. a young earth hypothesis has absolutely no merit, has been proven to be impossible and doesn't warrant a honest debate every time a yec thinks he has discovered the ultimate "proof"

you have no right to demand we play with you the ...[text shortened]... we consider the healing magic based on faith present in RPG games is real. would you humor him?

Considering this thread Thread 156033 I'm actually very pleased to have your opposition. If I didn't, I would be concerned that I hadn't taken a strong enough stand.

To pianomen1-Why the deep hate? It merely being a lie in your opinion does not provide a strong enough rational basis for such enmity.

You didn't read my original post. I've not found any ultimate proof-and if you understood what science really is, you'd understand that neither creationism or evolution can technically be proven.

You sir, have in my book lost all credibility and how any rational reader of these forums, while disagreeing with my position, can possibly agree with your methods and views is beyond me (even if they be Atheist and Evolutionist). Your views spark hate, despotism, violence, and lead to human atrocities that we remember with infamy in history.

I would never suggest evolution is a crime, it has academic merit just as creationism. So wouldn't it be better to teach them side by side and let the young minds decipher the truth rather than be subjected in the same way you suggest they are now to creationism to evolution?

Sad, just sad.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets make a deal. If you can find one single poster on this forum that understands what you were trying to calculate in your probability argument in the OP, and agrees with your conclusions, then I will admit to being the dunce and having a 'rudimentary understanding'. If however you cannot find a single poster in this forum then you admit that it is your communication skills that are lacking rather than my comprehension ability.

Since Black Beetle is responding to the heart of my contention, he/she seems to understand my point, then I'll take that as a yes, or perhaps I should refer to the several users who have emailed me thanking me for my posts, even if they haven't posted on here. I can ask them if they wish for me to give their names. I'm not alone in my opinion. KellyJay being another who supports what I've said.

But I won't really take your deal anyways as there is no need. Examine my math (it's really quite easy), you'll see it is correct (it isn't really mine but another's as it was published some time ago). I'm more interested in the likelyhood of successive and successful mutations/formations (as I expressed in the L-configuration).

Dawkins loves to claim that the evolutionary mechanism is so convincing that it gives the impression of design??? Really? Thank you for the concession-so then why isn't it designed? Why is a plane designed yet not a bird? I'm referring to a specific work he has written. I call this academic madness honestly.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm actually flabbergasted. At first I thought it was a joke, but evidently not, but to heed your request of respect and intelligence. Here we go.

Here's something I've detailed to other YEC's on the forum in the past, none have given a response. Ice core samples. Here's something I've posted before -
Here's the deal with ice core samples, as the la ...[text shortened]... the ice sheet in East Antarctica is over 3km thick. Surely you can see the implications of that?

I'll take a look at these, and I'm sure you'll give me time to respond as it will take some time for me to find adequate time to devote something substantive to this. So please bear with me. Also, I may enlist the opinion of several very trusted academics who are closer to these fields or perhaps (hopefully) in them. If interested, when I find any (assuming I do) sources that speak on your subject shedding light on it, may I forward them to you. You seem reasonable, which I can appreciate.

Originally posted by black beetle
But if it is mathematically possible, as you do acknowledge, it is mathematically probable dew time -and thus L-protein mutations are surely tenable. Anyway, I will come from another perspective;

Since each piece of the linear chain that forms a protein backbone consists indeed of one of the 20 amino-acid existing in nature, you are aware of the fact ...[text shortened]... account, and this is indeed the case for sufficient protein-function prediction and studies;
😵

Well, do you feel comfortable with a mathematical probability of 0.00% basically, no matter the amount of time ? Be honest please? While I agree it is in theory possible, how likely can it be? 10 ^ -14,184 is pretty low. In fact, If you invert it, 10^14,184 that is a huge number. In fact, so large that it outnumbers the number of atoms in the known/observable universe which is somewhere between 10^78 to 10^82.

So the evolutionary process is mathematically untenable. Yet, possible in theory. And that is my point.

Now to your body of the post-
First, I'll admit I'm no biologist, so a discussion of amino acids is out of my league quite really (and you quote lengthy academic articles-I didn't check though). But I'll point this out. While I may be able to accept that certain genetic traits can be trapped, or can we say retained, by physical and chemical properties, what was the likelyhood that this original good physical trait would come to be.

I mean, the evolutionist is forced to start from nothing, so the trait had to come from somewhere. Unless of course you believe in an eternal gene pool and that raises many other issues.

P.S. as a YEC, I reject many things on religious conviction and scientific conviction. I know, perhaps a semantic, but a key one nonetheless. Yet, as an academic, I do consider all views hopefully equally. Academic integrity demands that.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Since Black Beetle is responding to the heart of my contention, he/she seems to understand my point, then I'll take that as a yes, or perhaps I should refer to the several users who have emailed me thanking me for my posts, even if they haven't posted on here. I can ask them if they wish for me to give their names. I'm not alone in my opinion. KellyJay being another who supports what I've said.

All I ask is that you find one poster who understands your probability claim and will admit to understanding it and agreeing with the answer in this thread and can answer one or two questions about it in their own words so that I know that they understand it and are not just supporting you because you are both creationists.

But I won't really take your deal anyways as there is no need. Examine my math (it's really quite easy), you'll see it is correct (it isn't really mine but another's as it was published some time ago). I'm more interested in the likelyhood of successive and successful mutations/formations (as I expressed in the L-configuration).
Your math is wrong as it does not apply to the likelihood of successive mutations forming. I have asked you several questions about why you are calculating the probability that way, if you can answer them, I can explain to you exactly why your math is wrong.

Dawkins loves to claim that the evolutionary mechanism is so convincing that it gives the impression of design??? Really?
You must be responding to someone else, because I did not say anything about this.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Well, do you feel comfortable with a mathematical probability of 0.00% basically, no matter the amount of time ? Be honest please? While I agree it is in theory possible, how likely can it be? [b]10 ^ -14,184 is pretty low. In fact, If you invert it, 10^14,184 that is a huge number. In fact, so large that it outnumbers the number of atoms in the known/observable universe which is somewhere between 10^78 to 10^82. [/b]

I just flipped a coin 20 times and this is the result: T,T,H,H,T,T,H,H,H,H,H,T,T,H,H,H,H,H,T,H.
What is the probability that I would get that sequence?

I mean, the evolutionist is forced to start from nothing, so the trait had to come from somewhere.
Incorrect. Evolution does not require that all current traits existed in the first life form. So current traits did not have to come from nothing, they could have come from prior existing traits. This misunderstanding of evolution is at the heart of your incorrect probability calculation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
One of the reasons I have an issue with this type of thing. It is assumed
that at all times all the proper conditions are met the whole time which allows
the numbers to be ran.

No such assumptions are made.

If at any time during this process a mutation occurs that ends it that ruins the process, if any required condition leaves the numbers cannot be ran.
Incorrect. That is what King Tigers calculation assumes and that is one reason why it is incorrect. Evolution weeds out bad mutations.

So it is a huge matter of faith that in reality this could occur against the odds, more than having God part of reality in my opinion.
It is not against the odds. What black beetle said was that given enough time, the odds will be in its favour.
We both know that you personally have not calculated the odds. We have been through it in detail before and you admitted that you did not have the required information to calculate the odds.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I just flipped a coin 20 times and this is the result: T,T,H,H,T,T,H,H,H,H,H,T,T,H,H,H,H,H,T,H.
What is the probability that I would get that sequence?

[b]I mean, the evolutionist is forced to start from nothing, so the trait had to come from somewhere.
Incorrect. Evolution does not require that all current traits existed in the first life form. ...[text shortened]... s. This misunderstanding of evolution is at the heart of your incorrect probability calculation.[/b]

Did I suggest all traits had to start from nothing? No, I did not. What about the first trait? What was that probability. Or better, how about the very first piece of matter than spontaneously came from nothing to something? How do you calculate that?

Well, the likely hood of that sequence was

(2 x 1/2) x 20 with a 50:50 so 0.5^20. Unlikely, now do it again please in that exact sequence, or better yet sit there and wait for the coin to start flipping on it's own in that exact sequence, k?

btw, you just gave me more ammunition. Your coin analogy is very imperfect. Yes, you'll get a very unlikely result each time, but it fails all over because you are doing the flipping of the coin and I bet you can't keep reproducing the same results without some trick, but then that would smack of design....

Originally posted by King Tiger
Well, do you feel comfortable with a mathematical probability of 0.00% basically, no matter the amount of time ? Be honest please? While I agree it is in theory possible, how likely can it be? [b]10 ^ -14,184 is pretty low. In fact, If you invert it, 10^14,184 that is a huge number. In fact, so large that it outnumbers the number of atoms in the know ...[text shortened]... Yet, as an academic, I do consider all views hopefully equally. Academic integrity demands that.[/b]

You think that religious conviction and scientific conviction is a semantic difference? Well, it's clear then that English is not one of the many disciplines that you have studied in your academic career.

If you were to line up all the scientists in the world, what percentage of them would support the age of the earth as 6,000 years?

Yet, without any study of geology, you have concluded that this overwhelming majority is wrong.

And that you consider to be academic integrity?

Your attempt to create a persona of the open-minded creationist is not fooling anyone and your responses to twhitehead are so feeble even a non-mathematician/scientist like myself can see (some of) the flaws in your reasoning.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Did I suggest all traits had to start from nothing? No, I did not.

Actually you did in your probability calculation.

What about the first trait? What was that probability.
How would I know, I don't know what the first trait was, do you? It probably wasn't the L-protein that you chose as an example so its irrelevant.

Or better, how about the very first piece of matter than spontaneously came from nothing to something? How do you calculate that?
I don't know, and neither do you. And its not relevant.

Well, the likely hood of that sequence was

(2 x 1/2) x 20 with a 50:50 so 0.5^20. Unlikely, now do it again please in that exact sequence, or better yet sit there and wait for the coin to start flipping on it's own in that exact sequence, k?
So, pretty close to zero? How did I do it? You claim that such low probabilities are practically impossible.

btw, you just gave me more ammunition. Your coin analogy is very imperfect. Yes, you'll get a very unlikely result each time, but it fails all over because you are doing the flipping of the coin and I bet you can't keep reproducing the same results without some trick, but then that would smack of design....
Why would I want to reproduce the same results? Has the same L-protein ever evolved twice from scratch? I don't think so, do you?

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.

Here is one argument I came up with on my own: The moon has millions of meteor/asteroid/comet hits. Do some thermodynamic calculations, lets suppose those hits happened in your cosmology at the very beginning of your god creating the Earth.

One thing I would wonder as an aside, why would there be major hits on planets and moons at all if the Earth was only 6K years old? There wouldn't be enough time for all those hits to have happened.

The second thing, thermodynamic analysis would show, is suppose all those hits happened 6K years ago when the Earth was 'young'.

Because of the immense kinetic energy involved, the moon would have to have been molten on the surface during this bombardment.

The problem is, with a molten moon, 6000 years would not even be CLOSE to enough time to have shed all that heat. It would still be red hot.

There is no way it could have gone from red hot molten to the surface we have proven is cool enough from men to walk about on it in that short a time frame.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One thing I would wonder as an aside, why would there be major hits on planets and moons at all if the Earth was only 6K years old? There wouldn't be enough time for all those hits to have happened.

And there should be a similar number of hits on the earth, so the cooling problem would apply to earth too.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is one argument I came up with on my own: The moon has millions of meteor/asteroid/comet hits. Do some thermodynamic calculations, lets suppose those hits happened in your cosmology at the very beginning of your god creating the Earth.

One thing I would wonder as an aside, why would there be major hits on planets and moons at all if the Earth was o ...[text shortened]... e surface we have proven is cool enough from men to walk about on it in that short a time frame.

Interesting question, one I had not thought about before. I'm asking
because I don't know, not because I'm up to something, but does every
body from moon to planet have the same number of craters that our
moon does? Could it be that some of them may have formed for other
reasons if that isn't the case? If the earth doesn't have them like the moon
and if other bodies also don't, wouldn't it stand to reason something
occured to the moon that didn't else where? If the Earth was spared for
some reason and everything else was hit, hmm thank God for that!
🙂
Kelly