Freethinker Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodWe have, however, direct evidence of the remnants of the big bang. It is called background microwave radiation, was discovered 50 years ago and is being studied intensely these days. This supports the big bang theory directly. An absolutley incredible story isn't it! I love that story. So elegant, so serendipitous, so scientific. Two completely different groups looking for wo completely different things, that stumble on each other and change our view of the universe. I don't know if you caught it, but in an earlier post I hinted at it, waiting to see if anyone would bite.
Freethinker Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudCouple of questions.. Can you give me an example where the Bible contradicts itself? On another thread I posted a very long list of them. Those only covered contradictions involving Genesis. But one I prefer to jump to, rather than waste all the time listing the literally hundreds there are. A bit of math to make sure we are all up to speed first. Geometry actually. When working with round objects, circles as they are called, there are a few measurements used to describe the circles size. All round objects, circles, use the same measurements. Radius ®/ Diameter (D) - these measure the distance across the circle at opposite (farthest apart, passing thru the center) spots. The Radius is measured from the center to any spot on the circle. A Diameter is twice as long, from one side, thru the center, to the other side. Circumference © - the distance around the outside of the circle. pi - is a ratio between the Radius/ Diameter and the circumference. It is the same for every circle there ever was,is or will be (most likely?). pi is a transcendental number. It goes on to infinity as far as we know. But it is commonly represented as 3.14 as a minimal level of accuracy. You can figure out the circumference of a round object if you know the diameter by using the formula C = D * pi Thus if something is 10 units in diameter, we would have: C = 10 * 3.14 or C = 31.4 But the bible says this is wrong. 1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. So it starts by saying the Diameter is ten cubits from the one brim to the other. So we have the same 10 units as in the first example, therefore C=10*3.14 C=31.4 But the bible contradicts itself since it would require the bible to say and a line of thirtyone point four cubits did compass it round about. OK, no one would expect the bible to use that level of accuracy, after all, its not like it is the perfect word of some god or other. So maybe it could say 31 and a little? or at least get the 31 part right. Does the universe have a beginning? I answered this when you asked it the first time.
Freethinker Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudSpeakig of level of proof, the big bang theory certainly falls into that. Let me go back to my recent posts. Is there a beginning to the universe? The big bang suggests that it does. See? This is where you are wrong. But ignorance can be corrected. The BB defines a particular point in our time space continuum. If we travel backward (if that was possible) in time, the BB would be the farthest back we could go. But it is incorrect to say there was nothing before it. No valid scientist woould make such a claim. The only palce you hear this nonsense is from Creationists that don't understand the concept correctly. What is north of the north pole? If you start at anyplace on earth other than the north pole, you can walk towards the north pole. You can keep walking NORTH, until you reach the north pole. Then ANY step you take would be heading SOUTH. That does not mean that south is north of the north pole. It just means that because the earth is a curved surface, once you reach the north pole, the earth curves back towards the south. And there is nothing you can do about it. Well, you could fly a rocket out to space... but that is leaving our curved earth. Now directly relate that to the BB as the north pole. As you reach the north pole/ BB, becauses time/space is a curvature, once you would reach the BB, you would curve back around on your own time/space and start heading into the future again. SO it is NOT that there is nothing before the BB, it is that our time/space does not exist outside of it. It is curved. So my real question is, what was there before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that allowed for the big bang? Or the medium in which that matter was contained? This is the problem I have with the big bang. Out of nothing came something. No one has been able to explain it so it is ignored. Once more, your rejection of the BB is based on your ignorance of the BB. But ignorance can be cured by facts. ALthough I posted it before, so if you had read it the first time, you would ahve no exculse for your ignorance. So pay attention this time. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. E=MC^2 Thus matter is energy. They can be converted back and forth, but not... created nor destroyed. Now, at any one time the total energy in the universe is equal to ZERO. Thus nothing was CREATED. Also, is the universe infinite? If so, how can it be expanding like the big bang says it is? What is beyond infinity for the universe to expand into? OK, go back up this post. Remember the part about time/space being curved? Think of the expansion of time/space as being on the surface of a balloon. As you blow the balloon up, every point on it gets further apart, yet it is ALWAYS an infinite curved surface in that it does not have a beginning nor end. Always infinite, yet always expanding. Thus, as is predicted by the model, every spot is rushing away from every other spot with a speed that is relative to it's distance. Hubble's constant. Again, I agree with your previous post. What we believe is subjective. I don't know that the existence of God can be proven by any means. Either you believe or you don't believe. I would be willing to bet that Tormoddid not mean to allow the subjectivity of proof to be reduced to the point where any and all possible processes are equally valid. Thus while an individual can choose to believe or not beleive what ever they so decide, that does not mean all such decisions are equally valid. And there is a relative strength of accuracy that can be determined by how much proof there is for and or against something.
tinbud Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 There has been just as much research done to contradict and find errors with the Bible as there has been to validate it. That math problem has been addressed before and certainly doesn't make the Bible invalid. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp As for microwave radiation, it is false to say that it supports the big bang. Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth. "Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation."—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321. "The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [but] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation."—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698. "Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions. Ok. So you say matter can not be created or destroyed. It still doesn't answer my question as to where it came from in the first place. It also doesn't answer how it all came together and then exploded. And if you really want to use math, you have to know that the odds against random beneficial mutations eventually becoming the complex beings we are today is for all practical purposes impossible. And if you choose to respond, I would appreciate if you refrained from using words such as ignorant. I don't remember being condescending or insulting toward you and see no reason for you to be that way toward me.
kwackett Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 the components of a watch does not just fly from all over space and ends up being a watch. A watchmaker created it. but the watchmaker was created by his/her parents and so on..... so we end up saying god created the universe. but then, if we say god created the universe, then god must have a creator too. Huh?
kwackett Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 SO it is NOT that there is nothing before the BB, it is that our time/space does not exist outside of it. It is curvedi thought einstein discovered something that was transcendental quality which is light. light is absolute, everything else in this world is relative. it has already been posted before:"light does not actually exist within the physical existence although we can somehow perceive it. As you approach the speed of light one of the three dimensions (length, height, and width), the dimension in line with the direction of motion, becomes progressively less, and at the speed of light that dimension becomes zero. To determine volume we multiply height times width times length, but if any one of those three dimensions is zero then the volume is zero, and that thing therefore does not exist in the material universe. Light occupies no volume of space and therefore has no existence in the physical universeAnd, while everything in the physical universe has some mass greater than zero, which is a necessary characteristic for existence in the material world, light has no mass at all. As you approach the speed of light mass increases, at the speed of light mass is infinite. Regardless of how tiny the amount of mass you begin with, that mass rises to infinity at the speed of light. Since photons travel at the speed of light and do not reach infinite mass it means that they had zero mass to begin with, and a light therefore does not actually exist in the material world".
Tormod Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudThere has been just as much research done to contradict and find errors with the Bible as there has been to validate it. That math problem has been addressed before and certainly doesn't make the Bible invalid. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp I will let someone else discuss this. Whether the bible is "invalid" or not is a question of faith, as we have discussed before. Since so many things in the bible require interpretation to be understood, it should be obvious to anyone that what the bible says depends on who reads it. But I think that is a discussion which does not qute fit into this topic. As for microwave radiation, it is false to say that it supports the big bang. Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth. Do you even *know* what the background microwave radiation is? Then you would know that a) it is considered to be the remnant echo of the big bangB) it comes from all directionsc) the lack of smoothness is what is being studied. It is generally believed that the "spots" in the background radiation (which are due to extremely small variations in temperature) is what made structures like galaxies and clusters form quite early in the universe. "Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation."—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321. "The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [but] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation."—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698. These quotes are from sources which are more than 25 years old now. Like I said, this is being studied intensely and new observations are published almost daily. Here is a more updated resource for you: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html It is the homesite of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which has been an incredible breakthrough in our understanding of the cosmic microwave background. "Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions." You do not say where this quote comes from. But "cosmologists would like to believe"...funny phrase. In fact, what is observed in the universe today is exactly that: it looks the same in all directions. What is the point you are trying to make? Ok. So you say matter can not be created or destroyed. It still doesn't answer my question as to where it came from in the first place. It also doesn't answer how it all came together and then exploded. And if you really want to use math, you have to know that the odds against random beneficial mutations eventually becoming the complex beings we are today is for all practical purposes impossible. I assume this is aimed at
Tormod Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerI would be willing to bet that Tormod did not mean to allow the subjectivity of proof to be reduced to the point where any and all possible processes are equally valid. Thus while an individual can choose to believe or not beleive what ever they so decide, that does not mean all such decisions are equally valid. And there is a relative strength of accuracy that can be determined by how much proof there is for and or against something. You are right, Freethinker. The entire topic of "what is proof" is a long and arduous debate which has lasted for as long as people have tried to understand nature. Aristotle walked around in ancient Greece and observed and his ideas where considered to be proof for two millennia. Yet he was wrong about almost everything he said, because he did not have a large body of empirical scientific observation to base his claims on, so he just "assumed" that this must be so, and that process must be happening in such a way and so forth. After a while Kepler, Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, Bruno, Newton and company brought about a scientific revolution which eventually threw out dogma and put science on a more adequate footing: you question everything, and you do not throw ideas around and call them "facts" or "proof" before you know what you talk about (which, basically, means study, discuss, evaluate, and form an opinion). The scientific method, although outlined by the Greeks, is often more a harness than a tool because when someone says "well we have enough evidence now" then people are discouraged to study things further. That is when we must look at the foundations of the evidence and find the problems. Which is exactly what Einstein did when his relaitivity theory flew in the face of Newton's clockwork universe. My point is that when you have enough evidence for something, it is used to prove something. We then say "this has been proved", sometimes even "many times". It still does not mean that it is correct. We always have to make sure that the evidence we use is correct, which is where criticism and skepticism comes in. The entire thread we are in, "what would it take to prove the existence of a God", is an example of a phrase which has a lot of meaning. For example:a) what is "existence"? Is there a difference between physical existence (as in "prove God as a physical being") and non-physical existence (ie, "prove that God exists beyond our physics")B) What is "a God"?c) What is proof?d) What proof is needed in this case? What sort of data do we need to gather evidence? How much evidence do we need to say we can prove something? Philosophy is not so easy as we would like it to be, but man is it interesting. Tormod
Freethinker Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudThere has been just as much research done to contradict and find errors with the Bible as there has been to validate it. That math problem has been addressed before and certainly doesn't make the Bible invalid. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp You are correct. There have been pervious ATTEMPTS to resolve the math contradiction in that passage. NONE actually RESOLVE it. The fact that there ARE numerous attempts, all different, show that they do NOT resolve the problm. If there was ONE TRUE resolution, there would not be nor need to be others. Let's see which of the many attempts this one uses. From the site: Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations. Well at least they are honest enough to state they are only "possible explanations". 1. The first concerns the meaning of the word ‘cubit’ That's strange. There is nothing wrong with the use of "cubit". It is a KNOWN unit of measure. But if this is all they have... The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man’s forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. Oh this is a HOOT! The "foot" may have been based on a persons foot at one time. But when you are building the largest structure ever built in history, you don't use some random length which would change for every individual worker. The length of a cubit was well established at this point in time. They took it from the Egyptians (think pyramids, those sloppy constructions) But they are deperate to find ANYTHING to help keep the cards from all falling, so... From here they go into an extensive convolution of, if the dia,eter was 9.6 cubits then30 cubits for the Circumference would not be too far off. The first problem with this approach is that the DIAMETER is given FIRST in the bible. But that would not help them cover up the problem, so they start the explanation by attacking the CIRCUMFERENCE measurement and work backwards. It makes it impossible to use this lunacy if they are stuck acknowledging that the 10 cubits IS the PRIMARY REFERENCE for the rest of the problem. Interestingly they do acknowledge that the workers may not have been as DUMB as the writers of this nonsense. it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way. So they admit that there would have been a OFFICIAL measurer which would use a cubit-long rod. Yes. Even at this point in time they knew better that to think a whole batch of people could build sthe largest phsyical structure ever made successfully if they used random measurement lengths. This attempt is one of the worst I have ever seen! They even conclude by saying so: While the above seems reasonable, we have no way of knowing for certain whether the measurements were approximated in this way. However, even if it is assumed that the measurements given were precisely 10 and 30 cubits, the following appears to provide a definitive answer. Before we move on though. Let's look at the philosophical complications of this. We are sipposedly talking about the PERFECT WORD of the ALL POWERFUL GOD. Who based on this can;t get his people to measure things accruately enough to get it right in the bible, which is his PERFECT word. Thus to accept this obfuscation, we have to acknowledge that the bible is at best only an APPROXIMATION of reality. That it is CLOSE to the facts. So while they are anxious to get people to sucker for the above excuse, those same people would never
Freethinker Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudThere has been just as much research done to contradict and find errors with the Bible as there has been to validate it. That math problem has been addressed before and certainly doesn't make the Bible invalid. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp Now on to the 2nd attempt: 2. Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says Right off we see what they are trying to pull. The contradiction is contained with-in the single passage. That is one of the reasons I use it. It does not need to compare one section to another. It is contradictory in a single passage. But let's let them hand themselves more... 2. Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies’ (KJV), or a rim ‘like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom’ (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily. actually what is says is that there are lillies DECORATING the brim. "with flowers of lilies’". Further, grab any CUP you have around and look at the rim. Almost every cup I have or have seen does NOT flare out. But even that is irrelevant. What this is is an attempt to PRETEND the two measurements are measurements for two DIFFERENT spots on the circle. Remember the ACTUAL passage we are discussing describes a SINGLE CIRCLE. It is fully self contained in itself. But let's let them keep the cirlce jerk going. Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are: 1. The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side (points A and B in the diagram). 2. The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel below the brim. Notice first that this explanation does in fact disprove the 1st one. measured by a string pulled tightlysuddenly we go from a possible complete nighmare for the largest architectural project of it's time from random cubit lengths based on various different human sizes, to a FIXED REFERENCE LENGTH. OPS! But we KNOW that Christians have a problem with consistancy. We see it here all the time. Next what we ahve is the CLAIM that suddenly we are measuring things all over the place. A couple cubits here, a few others there... However if we actually read the bible, we find no such garbage specified ANYWHERE. HGere again is the ACTUAL passage: 1 Kings 7:23 ‘And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.’ ONE measurement location. No almosts, no statement about measuring at different points. No "this is aproximately correct". There are other equally fallacious attempts to resolve the obvious math contradictions of this passage. Not a single one would be accepted by any elementary school math teacher on a test paper. Except at a Christian school perhaps.
IrishEyes Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Ok, Freethinker and Tormod, I'm soooo confused. Please help me out here. I'm trying to keep track of all of your arguments, and you usually are so very good at agreeing on most everything, but this one is giving me fits... Can you both please clear it up??? From Freethinker Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:27 PM Thus matter is energy. They can be converted back and forth, but not... created nor destroyed. and then From Tormod Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:08 AM But matter can be both created and destroyed. Every single particle that we know of decays and has a half-life (the time it takes for half of any given amount of particles to break down into its constituent sub-particles, or energy for the fundamental particles)...Virtual particles pop in and out of existence in vacuum, constantly. So I would say there is no evidence that matter cannot be created and destroyed. I mean, if a couple of incredibly intelligent guys like you can't come to a concensus on this one issue, how are the rest of us mere mortals supposed to make sense of these troubling issues? (again, i'm not trying to be a pain in the a$$, but it struck me as funny to see such a glaring contradiction on the same page, just a few posts from each other.)
Freethinker Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudAs for microwave radiation, it is false to say that it supports the big bang. Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth. "Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation."—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321. "The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [but] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation."—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698. "Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions. OK, so you cut and pasted this from: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma8.htm So you can cut and paste. Please show us enough detail from these sources that show that as is usually the case, they are not taken completely out of context or represent unproven minority opinions. rather than actual ACCEPT refutation of the OVERWHELMINGLY accepted assertion of the background radiation being a perfect proof of the BB. I went to these sites and they are as bad as the attempts from the circle jerk site. e.g.7 reasons why background radiation does not support the Big Bang 1 - It is omnidirectional. Of course it's omnidirectional, That was EXACTLY why it PROVED the BB. If the noise source (background radiation) was from a single source, it would not work for the BB. THe noise is the remnant of the very first subseconds of the BB. It swept out uniformly. Thus the remnant would be seen in ALL directions uniformly. 2 - It is too weak. 3 - It lacks the proper spectrum. Again, you are ignorant of the facts behind this discovery. One set of scientists were theorizing what the remnant effects of the BB would be. They set up a series of issues that would have to be just so. They were trying to figure out how to go about measuring for it when another totally unrelated set of scientists, from AT&T were working on building a microwave system for long distance. But kept having problems with a background radiation they kept finding everywhere. They thought their euipment was faulty and were trying to find out what they were doing wrong. The two groups found each other. Thus the 1st group did not set up an experiment to justify their desires. They were presented with finds that EXACTLY MATCHED their predictions. So this garbage about too weak or wrong spectrum is completely eroneous. Ok. So you say matter can not be created or destroyed. It still doesn't answer my question as to where it came from in the first place. Don't ignore: At any one time the total energy of the universe is equal to ZERO. If you don;' understand how this resolves your question, let me know and I will try to simplify it more. It also doesn't answer how it all came together how all WHAT came to
Freethinker Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 Erg, it's friday afternoon adn I am trying to get out of here.. but for you Irisheyes... From Freethinker Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:27 PM Thus matter is energy. They can be converted back and forth, but not... created nor destroyed. and thenFrom Tormod Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:08 AM But matter can be both created and destroyed. Every single particle that we know of decays and has a half-life (the time it takes for half of any given amount of particles to break down into its constituent sub-particles, or energy for the fundamental particles)...Virtual particles pop in and out of existence in vacuum, constantly. So I would say there is no evidence that matter cannot be created and destroyed. I did not state that "matter" can not be created nor destroyed. I specifically stated energy. I did not correct tinbud when he incorrectly claimed I did. I corrected another part of his post and left that as was.When I read Tormod I thought there might be some confusion here. Part of the problem is trying to answer questions which have very long complicated answer and we have nowhere near enough space to do so. I stated that Energy can not be created nor destroyed. E=MC^2 Thus matter is energy. They can be converted back and forth, but not... created nor destroyed. Now, at any one time the total energy in the universe is equal to ZERO. Thus nothing was CREATED. ean, if a couple of incredibly intelligent guys like you can't come to a concensus on this one issue, how are the rest of us mere mortals supposed to make sense of these troubling issues? Anything I post is restricted by not being able to use a book length reply (even if it seems like it at times). And frankly well less than a PHD in cosmological physics. But I try.
tinbud Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerOK, so you cut and pasted this from:http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma8.htm You are right, I can cut and paste. Is that ok? Let's see the math.Cut and pasted from:http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-179a.htm According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away. Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is! For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most. But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 squ
GAHD Posted May 3, 2004 Report Posted May 3, 2004 yo tinbud, just FYI the numbers above should be written in Scientific notation.Sorry to nitpic, but I'd prefer you know.ex; "The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." " The proper way of writing it is "1*10^60"; where "*" indicates multiplication, "^" indicated an exponent The actual equation for statics of a 200 stage mutation assuming 50/50 odds is ".5^200" or "0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5......." a total of 200 times. This eqils out to 6.2230152778611417071440640537801^-61 on my calc here, indication the chance of sucessin your example above is a ridiculously small percent. In th real world this percent is a grossly smaller percentage, but you must realise that it isn't just 1 being making a mutation; every member of that species, and every species around it, has an equil chance of creating offspring with a viable or atleast neutral mutation. Well not an equil percentage; more complex DNA means that the chances of mutating sucessfully are reduced significantly. Note that on a bacterial level the generations grow exponentially so the chance of mutation does as well. This by no means indicates that the bacteria "will become human" after enough time, but after 60 billion years the bactria of our time might have mutated into another, diffferent, intelligent species. As well dolphins might have developped an opposible digit, and the slightly larger brain mass. At that point Dogs may have become an intelligent species. I can't say for shure (note all the "may and might" as this is obviously well beyond an era predictible to us biologically, but in that timespan the possibility of benificial mutation is actually quite high when you consider the number of generations that will have gone by.
Freethinker Posted May 3, 2004 Report Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbud Originally posted by: Freethinker OK, so you cut and pasted this from: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma8.htm You are right, I can cut and paste. Is that ok? Let's see the math. Cut and pasted from: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-179a.htm Hope I kept all the quotes and block quotes in tact! First comment, cutting and pasting is OK. I do it all the time. But I do it to PROVE a point I am making. I identify where it came from so it can be validated. I don't use to as if *I* was making the point. And when I post from another site, I pot enough to get the required details and explanations. Not just some assertions pretending they were mine. According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away. This seems reasonbly accurate enough for this discussion. Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. But this is not only completely erroneous, it contradicts the 1st paragraph. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass awaynearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience themBut as we have seen over and over, and I keep enjoying the opportunity to point out... CONSISTANCY is a PROBLEM for Christians. BY the very process, mutations are only passed genetically to future generations BECAUSE they are BENEFITIAL. To state that nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them is absurd. Statistically nearly all mutations have no relevant effect at all. They fit with-in the bell curve. While the few benefitial ones will tend to improve the species and the negative ones will end at that generation. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficialIf these sources ever read NEW sources, they would know better. Such as how the lengths of beaks in birds generationally follow the tides in some sea birds. Getting longer and shorter during successive generations based on direct response to environmental conditions. This was covered in Darwin's "Origins". So if these sources would catch up to the 19th Century, they would be getting colser to today's knowledge. For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up.<
Recommended Posts