1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164253 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Tsk, tsk ad hominem attacks, I thought you were all intellectualls that could back up your arguments.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163907 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 9:10 am

Only from prior research I have done. Give it a minute or two to sink in.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163900 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 9:05 am

Okay, one final post:

Chance events could never produce living organisms which can reproduce themselves.

"A simple physical consideration in terms of probabilities indicates that no molecules of the type which eventually generated the self-replicating system, found in living organisms, could have originated by random trials. The entire life of the universe is far too short in terms of probabilities. The origin of life should therefore be looked upon as a unique event."*Edmund Ambrose, Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 139. [University of London.]

Mathematically, anything less probable than 10 to the 49th power is totally impossible.

"There is general agreement among mathematicians, who incidentally have a reputation for being an ultra-conservative group when it canes to rubric matters of this kind, that anything with less probability than one chance in ten with 49 zeros after it, becomes impossible. Another way of expressing this number is to say, one chance in ten multiplied by itself 50 times. When written out, the number reads: One chance in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000! In other words, anything less probable than this does not stand a chance of ever taking place; that is, it is outside the range of possibility."Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1988), p. 58.

One scientist suggests that the amount of time needed to produce a single physical organ would be a number followed by thousands of zeros. Then, after an equal amount of long ages, a second organ might appear. But by that time the first organ would long ago have died.

[The amount of time needed for biological evolution of a single body organ:] "The length of geological time should be multiplied by 10 followed, by some hundred or thousands of zeros to make possible the arising of a new organ, as small as it could be, by pure chance alone. The time lapse needs to be so great because, in just two words, if the number of elements in a functional structure enlarges in the form of an arithmetic progression, then the time needed for this structure to arise by chance enlarges according to geometric progression." *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. x [p. 10].

An evolutionist explains that each type of protein randomly developed would require a vast amount of time to produce, simply because randomness cannot work very fast. Selection is such a slow process. (In addition, of course, random selection would go both ways, thus destroying that which was made as fast as it was put together, plus the problem that selection cannot impart life.)

"The origin of proteins is held to be a random process, at least ultimately, since selection can work with only what the random process delivers as having a minimum adaptive value."*P. Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function, " (1985), Vol. 34 Acta Biotheoretica p. 53.

Even assuming that all the chemicals were at hand to select from (and in nature they never are), there are 41,000 possible codes, but only one would fit each protein:

"The problem of synthesizing one simple protein of about 300 amino acids has bean cited . . A chain of 1000 nucleotidase made of the four basic units might exist in any of 41,000 ways, but only one will form the protein being sought. The chance that the correct sequence would be achieved by simple random combination is said to be so small that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of a concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."*W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History, (1984), p. 186.

The mathematical impossibility of chance producing just one of the many blood proteins (cytochrome c) testifies to the impossibility of chance producing even one living being:

"The number of sequences of cytochrome c is now 7.25 x 1080, the number of sequences for 101 sites is 3.4 x 10150. Therefore the probability of selecting a member of the cytochrome c family with the same optical isomers in a given set of 101 rolls of the icosahedral dice is 2.15 x 1094."*H. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," in Theoretical Biology (1977), 67J pp. 377, 387.

Leslie cites point after point, demonstrating the utter impossibility of an evolutionary origin of any living thing:

"We can point also the improbable left-handedness of almost all the amino acids found in life on earth, when left-handed and right-handed varieties are equally easily made in the laboratory; to the 'improbable' DNA molecule, a million times longer than it is wide; to estimates that the information encoded in a single human chromosome is equivalent to several thousand volumes of small print; to a large mammal's thousand trillion cells of about a thousand different varieties, and to how it took Evolution far longer to invent the cell, so naively called 'simple, than to make the leap to mammals; and so on."*J. Leslie, "Cosmology, Probability, and the Need To Explain Life," in Scientific Explanation and Understanding, pp. 53, 64-85.

DNA only works because it has enzymes to help it; enzymes only work because there are protein chains; protein only works because of DNA; DNA only works because it is formed of protein chains.

"But the enzymes only work because the protein chains are coded in a special sequence by DNA. DNA can only replicate with the help of protein enzymes. We are really in a chicken and egg situation!."*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 135.

Mutations could not be the cause of evolution, for they would suddenly have to produce the coding and content of every necessary type of protein molecule:

"If only ten amino acids of particular kinds are necessary at particular locations in a polypeptide chain for its proper functioning, the required arrangement (starting from an initially different arrangement) cannot be found by mutations, except as an outrageous fluke. Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for their survival. This situation is well-known to geneticists and yet nobody seems prepared to blow the whistle decisively on the theory."*F. Hoyle and *N. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 148.

In one medium protein will be found a coded string of 300 amino acids. But there is more:

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotidase in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotidase in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 or 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! . . Imagine how many universes it would take to accommodate 10600 DNA chains!"*F. Salsbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," in American Biology Teacher (1971) Vol. 33, pp. 335-336.

Without a basic code to operate by, the amino acid sequences in protein could not exist, much less function. Yet there is nothing we see in nature that could produce such coding, or its concomitant translator package:

"The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapts function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world."*H. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory, " in Theoretical Biology (1981), 91J. p. 13.

How then did the amino acids ever become coded into complicated protein chains? How did it originally happen? Why does it keep happening over and over again within your body and mine?

"But the question arises as to how these amino acids could have become joined together into polypeptide chains. It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans, J.B.S. Haldane's 'dilute hot soup' providing a supposedly appropriate medium.

"But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote.. The probability of forming a poly- peptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. The calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living systems are descended from a single protein molecule, which was formed as a "chance" acta view that has been frequently entertained. " *H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968) p. 158.

Mathematicians have calculated the number of seconds since the theoretical Big Bang. Yet there are not enough seconds to do the job of producing even the enzymes needed by plants and animals:

"There are perhaps, 1080 atoms in the universe and 1017 seconds have elapsed since the alleged 'big bang.' More than 2,000 independent enzymes are necessary for life. The overall probability of building any one of these polypeptides can hardly be greater than one in 1020. The chance of getting them all by a random trial is one in 1040000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 148.

Selection cannot create, and randomness cannot account for life forms:

"The probability for the de novo [suddenly new] emergence of a particular protein by chance alone is extremely small, even for a very imperfect one. A weak initial adaptiveness may be sufficient, but also necessary to make selection work. Without at least a minimum usefulness there are no alternatives between which to select. Selection does not create; it eliminates or conserves what chance produces, and optimizes what already exists according to the demands of life and environment. If the probability for a de novo or independent emergence of a protein is practically non-existent, because the latter implies the former, we have an evolutionary procase which the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and subsequent selection, chance and necessity, cannot account for adequately because the role of chance is overtaxed. . "*P. Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," in Acta Biotheoretica (1985), Vol. 34 pp. 53, 77-78.

To make matters worse, most body characteristics are under the control of several different genes! Yet each gene is composed of millions of DNA codings. The interrelated complexity of all this is astounding.

"Most, if not all, of our characteristics are polygenetic, that is, they are under the control of not one but a number of genes. For instance, eye color in Drosophila [the fruit fly] is under the control of 15 genes. The desirable alteration of a certain characteristic, if that is possible at all, most likely would require changes in more than one particular gene. Precisely coordinated changes in several genes would probably be required.

"If all the above problems could be solved, which seems incredible, one insuperable difficulty would yet remain. In each gene there are thousands of nucleotides, but only four different kinds of bases. In a gene of 10,000 nucleotides, there would be, on the average, 2,500 of each of the four different kinds of bases.

"Let us say we knew that to bring about a specific desirable change, we had to change the adenine, at position 5,263 of the chain, to a guanine. If a chemical or irradiation or some other kind of treatment were used, how could the effect of that treatment be limited to position 5,263 without affecting one of the other 2,499 adenines in this DNA, it could not."Duane Gish, "DNA: Its History and Potential, "in W.E. Lammerts (ed), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 315.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163894 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 8:57 am

Only responding to your insult asking for an open mind. Yours seems to be quite closed concerning alternative explanations. I really have to go.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163888 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 8:51 am

Sometimes, I wonder if your minds are so open that your brains have fallen out.

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163883 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 8:44 am

I would love to continue but have to go to a conference. I will be back early next week.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163874 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 8:32 am

God is. He wasn't created. Simple as that.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163873 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 8:30 am

Frankus1122

Faith is like the wind. I can't see God, I can only see the effects of Him.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163821 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 5:49 am

All that is within a living cell could not be placed ther by chance.

A million page book would be required to contain all the DNA coding contained in one mammalian cell. "... about 2000mpages of this type would be required to show the nucleotide sequence for the DNA in the chromosome of a typical single-cell bacterium; roughly a million pages would be needed to similarly display the genetic code embodied in DNA molecules that make up chromosomes of a typical mammalian cell." LL Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities, (1984)

The probability of complex molecules is similar for human proteins. The probabilities of biological evolution of each one (over 200,000) are the same as thoseagainst a random solution of a Rubik's cube (less than 1 chance in one billion).

These are roughly the same as you could give to the idea of just one of our body's proteins having evolved randomly, by chance. However, we use about 200,00 types of protein in our cells. If the odds against random creation of one protein are the same as those against a random solution of a Rubik's cube, then the odds against a random creation of 200,000 are immensely vast.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163816 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 5:28 am

Tyler Durden

Yep

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163811 by pacman71192 on April 19, 2008 at 5:13 am

As for bacterial reistance, these adaptations are in fact evidence for change over time, but not the kind that would change a microbe into a man. All examples of bacterial resistance are of microevolution, i.e change witin its own kind, Take staphylococcus for instance. When it becomes resistant to an antibiotic it remains staphylococcus and doesn't become a different kind of bacterium altogether. It remains staphylococcus.

When we take a closer look at how bacteria become resistant to a partiicular treatment, we find something very interesting. Just like in humans, information on how bacteria grow and survive is stored in the bacterial DNA. Therefore, if any complex change is to take place to turn an organism from one kind to another "more complex" kind, it must add new information to that kind's, i.e organism's, DNA. That is not what we observe taking place in bacteria at all. New information is never created. Existing information may modified, lost or even exchanged between bacteria, but never created.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163632 by pacman71192 on April 18, 2008 at 4:46 pm

It's kind of funny that several years ago (circa 1976) I was told that what offends many today will not be in the future (circa 2008) and beliefs held today (circa 1976) will be offensive in the future. Isn't it funny that on college campusses (or is it campii) that someone such as Ellen Degeneres would be accepted and someone such as Billy Graham would be considered offensive.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163620 by pacman71192 on April 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Science (pseudoscience) has become the opiate for the masses. "You who cannot accept OUR science are pathetic imbeciles. You cling to your religion like a crutch to hold you up. Like lemmings, you follow your GOD to your destruction." And I am the pathetic one. Oh well.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163619 by pacman71192 on April 18, 2008 at 4:10 pm

It's not religion. It's faith. Faith that is much bigger than I. I can't explain it, I can only live it. I am sorry that some of you find that offensive.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163616 by pacman71192 on April 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm

On the contrary, I'm not at all unpleasant. I think it funny that in academia and in liberal (not politically liberal) thought, there is room for alternative (notice my choice of words) opinions except for this one arena. What is it that makes darwinians afraid and so defensive. So defensive that some have become quite offensive. Each kind reproduces its own kind period. Scientific theory has to be thrown out the window. Evolution has never been observed and will never be observed.

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163600 by pacman71192 on April 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Once again, you atheist/Darwinians show your arrogance and willing ignorance. I haven't ween the film and don't know if I will but when you write of the link of darwinism and naziism debate seemed like hours is like listening to a 5 minute Stephen J. Gould diatribe against Intelligent Design. You all should know that it takes at least as much faith to believe in darwinian evolution as it does to believe in ID. For instance, each species which has separate genders would have to have male and female evolve side-by-side simultaneously. Ponder that you pompous ivory tower elitists who may be bitter and cling to your inferior evolutionistic thinking.