Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-spermia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
”I will NEVER, no never, reject one of them who comes to Me.” - Jesus
Evolutionary Theists (VS) Young earth creationists could argue night and day,. - Did the lizard gradually develop traits that allow such, OR were they gifted at creation on the 6th day..? 🤔
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
.. is Tarq. a Young earth creationist or heretical Old earth creationist?
Every believer in evolution is a "creationist" in the meaningful sense that he believes in a process that either creates life from inanimate matter or changes one life form into another. So, it is analytically silly to speak of "creationism" as a point of demarcation since every person who believes in either a life-creating process or a life-creating intelligence is a "creationist", properly understood. As for me, I think the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 13.8 billion. Satisfied?
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story.
Here is what I was looking for:
Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows:
‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads.
I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued....
•All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th.
•Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
•If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time.
After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’
The Bronze Snake 4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea,[a] to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”
6 Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.
8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
45 pages on my computer...............................
and counting.
50 pages is coming up quick!
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
.. I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
Bingo Ringo.
but how many think they are a shoo-in for the VIP short list coz Jesus put a little gold star on all their foreheads .. "no losers here - everyones a winner!..
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story.
Here is what I was looking for:
Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows:
‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads.
I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued....
•All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th.
•Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
•If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time.
After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’
Tarq,
The arguments for the possibility of a multiverse have nothing to do with protein folding. Nice strawman.
As for Flew's argument, I'm aware of it, and it's wrong beginning with the 4 points I mentioned above. In order for the example to be valid, there would be no restriction to English, or any other known language for that matter, but also potential languages not yet imagined. As mentioned above, current life as it exists in not the only potential form or nature of life.
Additionally, withing evolution, useful variations can build upon one another. To use your analogy, Within 30 key strokes you could expect a space to be selected. If the next result is not an "a", you don't return to the beginning, but select again. Within another 30 key strokes you would have your "a", and so on.
So when properly envisioned, the opportunity is much greater then what Flu represents.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
That's a great internet meme.
Can you provide any evidence it actually happened, such as the name of the institution, student, and grader?
Its all very scientific, I doubt you would grasp it.
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
