[_ Old Earth _] Derailed, lol

[Patashu]

Re: Creationists only please

So, under what conditions does the speed of light vary, Heidi?

If it does vary as you say then how has everyone managed to converge on the same value for a constant speed of light? Is it time varying, space varying, dependent on the presence of other matter or what?

How do experiments which hinge on the speed of light being constant work?

 

[John]

Re: Creationists only please

Hijacked much.

Can we go back to what the OP said ?

 

[freeway]

Re: Creationists only please

MAKING PROTEIN BY CHANCEâ€â€The probability of forming 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acids each by chance is 1 x 1O64489. THAT is a BIG number! If we put a thousand zeros on each page, it would take a 64-page booklet just to write the number!

The probability of those 124 specifically sequenced proteins, consisting of 400 all-left-amino acids each, being formed by chance, if EVERY molecule in all the oceans of 1031 planet earths was an amino acid, and these kept linking up in sets of 124 proteins EVERY second for 10 billion years would be 1 x 1078436. And THAT is another BIG number! That is one followed by 78,436 zeros

:crazyeyes: man thats a lot of numbers but the evolution gang says this number happens just by pure chance... pure chance. but these are the kind of numbers they want us to just ignore,these are the kind of numbers that needs to be achieved over and over and over again to make any and every different species and plant life, in there big bang explanation. and they say we are the crazy ones :crazyeyes: dare I say it but it looks like ID! which to me ===============GOD!!!

freeway

 

[freeway]

Re: Creationists only please

The possible arrangements of the 20 different amino acids are 2,500,000,000,000,000,000. If evolutionary theory be true, every protein arrangement in a life-form had to be worked out by chance until it worked rightâ€â€first one combination and then another until one was found that worked right. But by then the organism would have been long dead, if it ever had been alive! can you imagine how many time this 20 strand amino had to rearranged until it finally found the right combination,you could pick the winning lotto numbers every day for a year. Well guess thats why they "evolutionist" need millions and billions of years. :

 

[Square]

Re: Creationists only please

I have read that there are approximately 3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome (I personally have not counted the number, so the estimate is based on hearsay). If the sequence count is reasonably close, and the earth’s age is allegedly about 3 to 4.5 billion years old (again, the age estimate is based on speculation and hearsay, and the estimates are often changed several times a year), and the oldest estimated age of life-forms dates to about 3.2 billion years ago (http://www.astrobio.net/news/article293.html), then there had to average about one evolutionary genome development per year since the first life. Each and every one of the ‘random chance-mutation’ evolutionary steps would have had to have been correctly sequenced and genetically passed to offspring prior to the life-form’s death (often within a life-span of a few days to a few years).

Even if (wild speculation) genome base pairs were able to correctly chance-mutate at the average rate of once per year to produce a human, still (according to Neo-Darwinian-style evolution) the chance-mutations would only be occurring in one individual life-form at a time, and the new sequencings would not have sufficient time be transferred to the whole of a specie at the average rate of one per year.

In another view, if the base pairs were changing so rapidly, then there would be a far less chance of a single specie remaining similar since individual life-forms would evolve into a huge quantity of distinctively different creatures. The base pairs had to occur almost simultaneously throughout each specie.

The amoeba is claimed to have 670,000,000,000 base pairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome), which equates to an average of about 191 correct-evolutionary-chance-mutations each year for 3.5 billion years.

It is not logical nor mathematically sound to believe that genetic “evolutionary chance-mutations†would occur so quickly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and genetic-based chance-evolution is an extraordinary claim that has yet to provide any evidence.

Now it is possible to theorize (speculate) that a form of ‘group consciousness’ might exist that produces simultaneous genetic adaptation, which would help to explain (speculate) how it might be possible for so many genome pairs to be produced within such a short period of time. The speculation might combine thoughts of the observed DNA phantom effect, of string theory, of the Bohm/Aspect holographic universe theory, and of a unique effect of Creation that I have been toying with for many years. If the speculation held water, it would prove to be a tremendous boon for evolution because it would show that one creature’s adaptation to its environment would semi-immediately be learned and genetically recorded by all members of the specie (and to a degree, all other life-forms as well). The primary difficulty for Neo-Darwinism, however, is that if the speculation does hold water, then it would also validate at a physics level that an Originating Consciousness purposefully designed the holographic ‘matrix.’

Pure speculation, but based upon sensible rules of physics: It is quite possible to create the whole of the universe in a very short duration of time (literally days by human measure), including the presence of light waves that exist simultaneously between earth and the furthest stars (the Steinhardt/Turok cyclic model (http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/) visualization of two each 2D branes bumping-up together gives an idea of how waves on a 2D plane can exist outside of space-time). I do not believe nor disbelieve the Old Testament genealogy method of estimating Creation’s age; I simply don’t know what the age of the universe is, and I choose to not guess.

On the topic of ‘firsts’, there is a website that gives a fair amount of emphasis to firsts. One of the pages is at http://www.thelogics.org/thelogicsfirst.html.

The law of God came first; then Creation.

Creation is created upon the laws of God.

The laws of God are what keep Creation in existence.

Nothing Created was created outside of the laws of God.

Nothing can self-create itself outside of Creation.

Any law not in agreement with God’s laws, will self-destruct.

God’s laws are not hidden: to know God’s laws, know His Creation.

Man’s laws cannot be valid, nor creative, unless the laws are in harmony with God’s laws.

Nature (Creation and Creator) rules man; man does not rule Nature.

God came first and His laws rule all things. Man’s science rules nothing.

God is love, and love remains the sole measure of correctness.

 

[John]

Re: Creationists only please

Good post.

Welcome to the forums

 

[jwu]

Re: Creationists only please

Even if (wild speculation) genome base pairs were able to correctly chance-mutate at the average rate of once per year to produce a human, still (according to Neo-Darwinian-style evolution) the chance-mutations would only be occurring in one individual life-form at a time, and the new sequencings would not have sufficient time be transferred to the whole of a specie at the average rate of one per year.

Every human has about 130 mutations in average. Due to sexual reproduction "parallel mutations" of various individual can make it into the same lineage, thus providing a further increase.

The amoeba is claimed to have 670,000,000,000 base pairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome), which equates to an average of about 191 correct-evolutionary-chance-mutations each year for 3.5 billion years.

It is not logical nor mathematically sound to believe that genetic “evolutionary chance-mutations†would occur so quickly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and genetic-based chance-evolution is an extraordinary claim that has yet to provide any evidence.

191 mutations per year - what's the problem? Amoeba have quite short generations, and with such a long genome there are many many mutations per generation.

Besides, the whole mechanism which you propose has little to do with the ToE - it does not claim that the genome grew linearly in first instance, "one right mutation at a time".

However, since you claim that the figures are unrealistically high, then you must have an idea what would be a realistic figure in order to arrive at that conclusion. What is it, and how did you calculate it?

 

[John]

Re: Creationists only please

Hey welcome to the other side of the coin fellow creationist jwu ! :

 

[jwu]

Re: Creationists only please

Well, i've never been a fan of preaching-to-the-choir-threads, but if you and the others prefer so, then we can discuss this issue in dedicated thread.

 

[John]

Re: Creationists only please

Well, i've never been a fan of preaching-to-the-choir-threads, but if you and the others prefer so, then we can discuss this issue in dedicated thread.

Do whatever you wish

[offtopic] Hey do you have Skype? [/offtopic]

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Creationists only please

man thats a lot of numbers but the evolution gang says this number happens just by pure chance... pure chance.

Um no. Proteins form by natural selection, which is the antithesis of chance. If you build your list on misconceptions you'll just end up with a lot of foolish arguments against things no one says.

You'd be a lot more effective against science if you knew what it was.

And if you want only creationists on this thread, you should have put in in the "creationists only" discussion list.

 

[BobRyan]

Re: Creationists only please

Um no. Proteins never "form" by natural selection. The only way viable Proteins "form" is in the construct of a living cell - a superstructure that is architected to make viable Proteins with the correct Chiral orientation.

In the "natural selection" model you would have Proteins "somehow forming" and all the "less fit" proteins "dying off". Natural selection has nothing to do with it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Re: Creationists only please

Well, i've never been a fan of preaching-to-the-choir-threads, but if you and the others prefer so, then we can discuss this issue in dedicated thread.

It is "helpful" to see just how "atheist" a Christian argument will go. To do that you have to have at least "some" of these arguments within a Christian context.

As for Atheists -- it is "helpful" to see just how many of their fellow atheist darwinist leaders they will contradict (see the junk-science basis for atheist darwinism thread for example).

But these are entirely seperate objetives and need separate contexts.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Creationists only please

Um no. Proteins never "form" by natural selection.

That's wrong, too. It's been directly observed to happen. Would you like an example?

In the "natural selection" model you would have Proteins "somehow forming"

No. They form by random mutation and natural selection. Would you like an example?

Natural selection has nothing to do with it.

Well, remember you also thought that attributing the origin of life to God, was atheism, so it may be that you just have a little trouble with the meaning of words.

 

[BobRyan]

Re: Creationists only please

In the "natural selection" model you would have Proteins "somehow forming"

Barbarian
No. They form by random mutation and natural selection. Would you like an example?

Wrong.

Try - Ribosomes -- architecutre, structure, design (not random mutation) that is how you get "proteins" that comprise living cells. But it is not too surprising that you prefer "story telling" to science.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Creationists only please

(Barbarian points out that new proteins evolve by mutation and natural selection)

Wrong

No, it's right. For example, Barry Hall, working with E. coli, observed the evolution of a number of novel proteins as a result of natural selection and mutation. Surprisingly, the culture also evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system to boot.

In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
Kenneth Miller, citing Barry Hall in Evolution in a Petri Dish

But it is not too surprising that you prefer "story telling" to science.

See above. You messed up again, Bob.

 

[John]

Re: Creationists only please

Man o man, this train has been derailed severely :

 

[Bryce]

Re: Creationists only please

Yes, but I'm rather enjoying it actually. :roll:
Perhaps we should start a new thread?

 

[John]

Re: Creationists only please

perhaps :
I retitled the thread "derailed, lol" :

 

[Barbarian]

The chicken or the egg.

The egg. There were eggs long before there were chickens. Or birds for that matter. If you mean was the first chicken from an egg, yes. We happen to know the species from which chickens evolved. It was a rather gradual process, but at some point, the jungle fowl had changed enough to call it a chicken.

The stars to make the elements or the elements to make the stars.

Elements. Hydrogen, helium, and perhaps lithium formed with no stars to make them.