RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Audie]

Audie: Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I posted many factual things for you to address. All you have to do is READ them. Of course, making cute comments is far easier, because you KNOW what I posted presents extremely formidable problems with it, and which makes it statistically/immensely impossible.

But no problem for your magic, lifeless, undirected, random "prebiotic soup," eh? You refuse to address something so improbable, while just repeatedly referencing evolution as a proven fact. Using the words in a sentence is easy, but laughing off the immense improbabilities shows me that you will believe in evolution despite odds so overwhelming against it. But how inconvenient, eh, to go on and on how something is supposed proven fact, when you have Nobel winners and people like Hoyl that cite its off the charts improbabilities, while they also call the development of life "miraculous." And that doesn't even address the necessary PER-conditions, elements and chemistries, all of which must be so incredibly precise, and yet, pure, blind, dumb randomness just HAPPENED to produce precisely the things needed, AND capitalized upon them. Wow! So much faith one must have to believe this, because you do so 1) knowing the statistically enormous improbability of it, 2) without a shred of proof it is possible, 3) with out anyone ever observing such. I'd say people also believe this immense improbability, because they intuitively know that the ONLY other alternative is that an Intelligence designed and created the impossible. Because there are only TWO choices? Blind, dumb randomness designed and created an astounding universe, OR some God or god-like intelligence of untold power did so.

Audie, please just address the astounding improbability of this:"cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment." AND, "life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome." But I'll let you explain just the cytochrome development, considering the odds are not only huge against it, but that the odds of the rest are even greater.

Do you believe in things that statisticians say are have odds so great as to make them considered an impossibility???!!!

WHY?

In the above I have put in bold the false things you made up about me.

[Audie]

Audie: Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I posted many factual things for you to address. All you have to do is READ them. Of course, making cute comments is far easier, because you KNOW what I posted presents extremely formidable problems with it, and which makes it statistically/immensely impossible.

But no problem for your magic, lifeless, undirected, random "prebiotic soup," eh? You refuse to address something so improbable, while just repeatedly referencing evolution as a proven fact. Using the words in a sentence is easy, but laughing off the immense improbabilities shows me that you will believe in evolution despite odds so overwhelming against it. But how inconvenient, eh, to go on and on how something is supposed proven fact, when you have Nobel winners and people like Hoyl that cite its off the charts improbabilities, while they also call the development of life "miraculous." And that doesn't even address the necessary PER-conditions, elements and chemistries, all of which must be so incredibly precise, and yet, pure, blind, dumb randomness just HAPPENED to produce precisely the things needed, AND capitalized upon them. Wow! So much faith one must have to believe this, because you do so 1) knowing the statistically enormous improbability of it, 2) without a shred of proof it is possible, 3) with out anyone ever observing such. I'd say people also believe this immense improbability, because they intuitively know that the ONLY other alternative is that an Intelligence designed and created the impossible. Because there are only TWO choices? Blind, dumb randomness designed and created an astounding universe, OR some God or god-like intelligence of untold power did so.

Audie, please just address the astounding improbability of this: "cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment." AND, "life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome." But I'll let you explain just the cytochrome development, considering the odds are not only huge against it, but that the odds of the rest are even greater.

Do you believe in things that statisticians say are have odds so great as to make them considered an impossibility???!!!

WHY?

Other comments:

Is your topic ToE, or the origin of life, or maybe the origin of the universe?

ToE does not address the origin of life.

Evolution... proven fact.

Do you mean ToE proven? Nobody but an idiot would assert that.

knowing the statistically enormous improbability of it, 2) without a shred of proof it is possible

I know that some (not "statisticians" as if that means all of them, a grand consensus) make this claim.

I get the impression you've not read any counter arguments.

[Kurieuo]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

[Audie]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

That is pig latin for "audie is being a jerk".

[Kurieuo]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

That is pig latin for "audie is being a jerk".

If that is the case (which I'm not saying is ), then Audie might simply be your alter ego like Krink is mine.

[Audie]

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

That is pig latin for "audie is being a jerk".

If that is the case (which I'm not saying is ), then Audie might simply be your alter ego like Krink is mine.

Hmm. Audie / Min; Min / Audie.

You may be on to something. Or, wait, who else knew?

[Philip]

You're position is simpler then you are making it out to be. You either assert that God directly created this world (generally or certain parts), or else you assert that God guided a process. If the former, then you either have no evidence and you do so by faith alone based on God's word or else you do have evidence, not in terms of probabilities but in terms of defeaters (such as neo suggested). If the latter, then you should make the argument that we ought not expect God to have to intervene in this or that critical moment of the process but rather say that God is such a good designer that creation unfolds according to His plan, which is to say, that there is no guidance of the ToE. The problem with arguing that God intervened to solve probability problems not only preaches to the choir as noted above but also mixes messages. You have a God who chooses to let nature unfold according to a fairly natural design, but then you argue that design isn't natural after all because it couldn't really happen at critical points. It's all just muddled and reeks of a god-of-the-gaps type approach.

I know you don't think of it that way. I'm asking you to start thinking about it that way, because if the goal is to give a reasonable and persuasive answer for your faith, the approach you are taking just doesn't work.

My entire point is that, evolution or not, 1) EVERYTHING that occurred would be impossible without God, and 2) that UNBELIEVERS who put so much stock in evolution need to realize that even IF evolution occurred, A) it was far subsequent to and entirely dependent upon ALL that FIRST (and LONG before) suddenly and miraculously came into existence, as well as upon what transpired during the 10 billion years before there would have even been anything to evolve; And B) evolution has many insurmountable, statistically improbable obstacles - UNLESS some eternal Intelligence of great power drove the process; and C) that HOWEVER things INSTANTLY came into existence with such incredible design, functionality, and with such power, would have been impossible without God. ALL of what I'm saying is to point to the fact that belief that any self-existing, blind, random, non-intelligent, unguided things could account for what immediately came into existence or for the universe that was produced, isn't rational or logical! I'm FAR less concerned about what processes played out, as I am that WHATEVER the processes or details, people need to understand that none of it would have been possible without God. And that goes for whether the universe was created in a literal week, is billions of years old, was created by God through Progressive Creation, or even evolution.

My point is ultimately NOT to argue against evolution, or ANY processes, or even to address the Day/time issues. I think you are seeing this in a different way, hung up on the YEC interpretation. But my view has nothing to do with OEC vs. YEC, or proofs for ANY specific process. It's mostly about what is and what is not possible without GOD first creating, driving and sustaining all that exists. And to illustrate that, is why I highlighted the numerous, mathematically/statistically insurmountable and improbable odds, specific obstacles and limits, as to what things it is rational to believe possible of non-intelligent things and sheer chance. And, of course, evolution itself explains absolutely ZERO about the FAR more important questions concerning the origins of everything that preceded it, and that it would have been entirely dependent upon, IF indeed it did occur. Evolution is a mere sideshow debate that obscures the far more important questions.

[Audie]

]

My entire point is that, evolution or not, 1) EVERYTHING that occurred would be impossible without God, and

Or you could say nothing of any sort would be possible without god. Coz god made it all and there must be a god, and so on.

2) that UNBELIEVERS who put so much stock in evolution need to realize that even IF evolution occurred, A) it was far subsequent to and entirely dependent upon ALL that FIRST (and LONG before)

A) Like nobody fails to realize you cant do no evolvin' withut no universe.

Or that understanding ToE has a thing to do with whether a person believes in God. Its not about "unbelievers" "putting stock".

suddenly and miraculously came into existence,

Uh, no, miracles are for miracle-believers.

B) evolution has many insurmountable, statistically improbable obstacles -

You are (choose to be) convinced of this. You could at least state that as an opinion, not give it the attributes of received knowledge.

C) that HOWEVER things INSTANTLY came into existence with such incredible design, functionality, and with such power, would have been impossible without God.

So you say, none of it has a thin g to do with evolution, other than to imply taht such God as you believe in lacks the capacity or inclination to have made a universe that can run itself.

ALL of what I'm saying is to point to the fact that belief that any self-existing, blind, random, non-intelligent, unguided things could account for what immediately came into existence or for the universe that was produced, isn't rational or logical!

honestly, your strings of adjectives! i dont know as how anyone does believe that, so the irrational bit is a bit of a s-man.

I'm FAR less concerned about what processes played out, as I am that WHATEVER the processes or details, people need to understand that none of it would have been possible without God.

That is fine; maybe there is a god, in which case it is all as you say. You might be better off sticking to that, rather than wading into deep water.

My point is ultimately NOT to argue against evolution,

"deep water:

And to illustrate that, is why I highlighted the numerous, mathematically/statistically insurmountable and improbable odds, specific obstacles and limits, as to what things it is rational to believe possible of non-intelligent things and sheer chance

This is tho essentially an op ed, not fact.

And, of course, evolution itself explains absolutely ZERO about the FAR more important questions concerning the origins of everything that preceded it,

Come on Phil you are just bold type calling attention to news of the obvious.
Auto mechanics has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, either.
The only people who seem to get confused on this are various religious sorts who think it is god vs evolution.

and that it would have been entirely dependent upon, IF indeed it did occur. Evolution is a mere sideshow debate that obscures the far more important questions

Are these really questions in your mind, or certainties?

But sure, people who think that evolution is somehow a challenge to the existence of god are being dimbulbs. And generally, in their ignorance and zeal, bringing discredit to themselves and their faith.

So yeah, we agree to some extent.

I'd say those who havent a clue about earth history or evolution should either study, ask questions, or keep quiet, not trumpet their silly ideas like '"gap" or "flood".

What do you think they should do with what you feel are the really important questions? (and what are they?)


.

[Philip]

IF one has ALREADY ruled out the existence of God, then that person will also very likely reject any thing or data, or interpretations thereof, that conflicts with what they have already ruled out. They refuse to let their mind go there, even if there are no other rational explanations for what exists, where it came from, or how it functions.

Audie, please comment of the new thread I posted about origins: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=41273. Perhaps this will shed some light on what you believe or disbelieve, concerning what is and isn't possible, or rational, to believe.

[Audie]

IF one has ALREADY ruled out the existence of God, then that person will also very likely reject any thing or data, or interpretations thereof, that conflicts with what they have already ruled out

General assumptions about hypothetical persons not present dont seem so useful to me.

I dont "rule out" there being a god. I could comment on that in PM perhaps.

It is true of course that people in general dont tend to see anything that conflicts with their chosen beliefs. In science, at least, that is a cardinal sin.

In religion, it is a virtue.

They refuse to let their mind go there, even if there are no other rational explanations for what exists, where it came from, or how it functions.

"They", being whoever. As noted, this is the human condition, the older the more so. it is something one has to struggle against. Unless, of course, the
ethos is that its a sin to doubt or question or change your mind.

Audie, please comment of the new thread I posted about origins: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=41273. Perhaps this will shed some light on what you believe or disbelieve, concerning what is and isn't possible, or rational, to believe

Um, ok..

[PaulSacramento]

I really don't understand the huge issue here with TOE.
Darwinism, yes of course, but evolution itself?
Heck, you do realize there are a few different views WITHIN the TOE, right?
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012032 ... ution.html

https://www.classicalconversations.com/ ... hey-matter

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/biolo ... ogy/27220/

[Audie]

I really don't understand the huge issue here with TOE.
Darwinism, yes of course, but evolution itself?
Heck, you do realize there are a few different views WITHIN the TOE, right?
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012032 ... ution.html

https://www.classicalconversations.com/ ... hey-matter

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/biolo ... ogy/27220/

We observe a lot of difference in Christianity too. Full immersion v splash-splash..you know.

It is kind of a so-what, isnt it?

"Huge issue".....

For those to whom "evolution" is anathema, the devil's spawn, a godless lie or whatever, I guess its a big deal.

It is primarily their problem, tho I do hate to see superstition passed from generation to generation, and is is a national problem when they try to force
creationist stuff into the schools.

[Philip]

Paul: I really don't understand the huge issue here with TOE.

THE issue, at least for me, is that anyone could think evolution could be a Godless process that explains the diversity of life that came to be on this planet. Paul, I'm sure you, as well, recognize that without God to have driven WHATEVER processes - be they evolution of whatever stripe, Darwinism, neo-Darwnist, etc - that without God to make the impossible otherwise possible, we wouldn't have a universe, much less a planet teaming with such incredibly diverse life. The idea that blind, unguided, chance, and time, alone could produce the array of life we see is beyond me. And I say that WHATEVER the processes and mechanisms actually were or however they worked. And THAT was my point - though I should have expressed it better. Certainly for Christians, they should realize that God didn't design and orchestrate processes that He also didn't fully know precisely how they would work, or exactly what they would produce, and when, and for whatever purposes. As non-theist/pure naturalists love to point out, if you were to re-run the evolution "algorithm" over and over, likely vastly different results and species would occur, with each re-run. Why? Because pure chance and blind, random processes don't produce perfectly repeatable consistency.

But I get the feeling, from those who are non-theists who are convinced that evolution needed no God, that NO astronomically calculated odds of ANY highly unlikely scenario, and without certain proof, no matter how small the probabilities, will ever convince them of the unlikeliness of the many extraordinary things that would have had to have happened, that would have otherwise been impossible without a superior Intelligence of immense power guiding and propelling it. And, yes, I am quite familiar with the many offshoots of evolutionary theories out there. And, yes, it depends upon what one defines as evolution. I spent 13 years working in the zoological field, where I met my wife, who is a biologist.

But again, the other huge issue for me is when people that don't believe in God - or ANY god - blather on about evolution as if it disproves something about theological assertions found in Scripture. Especially as they ignore the fact that evolution would have been impossible without EXACTLY the precise things that came INSTANTLY into existence at the Big Bang, and as NOTHING physical, much less life, existed before that moment. So, people ignore the FAR bigger problem they have to explain, and use their verbal sleight of hand to distract form the fact that NO science can explain what happened at the Big Bang. And, unproven speculations are NOT such proof! It takes a lot of faith to believe what happened at the Big Bang, and ever afterward, could be no more than random things interacting with enough time. It's believed only on faith and unsubstantiated speculation. And not only that, the speculation keeps morphing and morphing into theories evermore complex.

So, the issue isn't exactly evolution. It's anyone asserting what exists needs no God to explain it. despite however extremely improbable the calculated odds against it might be. And I would have the same problem with ANY process one asserted to be Godless, as having the same astronomically puny odds. Evolution just happens to be a favorite of most non-theists who think it disproves God or the Bible, even thought they ignore that it would have been entirely dependent upon suddenly appearing things, billions of years before, that they can't remotely explain.

[neo-x]

Phil, I get what you are saying and I understand why you are frustrated. Perhaps I can share my two cents. I have maintained for some time that the kalam and the fine tuning arguments are not the best ones, I think they are weak considering the scientific evidence which may soon show them wrong. I always think that the OM argument is a more logical one to me at least.

Anyway

they ignore that it would have been entirely dependent upon suddenly appearing things, billions of years before, that they can't remotely explain.

Nothing appeared suddenly Phil and no serious person studying these things would agree with you or think so, that is a strawman.

Like Jac said earlier the argument from probability is not a great one. And my reasons for saying so are slightly different. We are really not even the billionth of the billionth fraction of this universe. Our own milky way contains at least 200 billion stars and suns with more than 100 billion planets. And our milky way is just one galaxy in the 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. If you consider these numbers the probabilities of life present here is not only trivial it's not that unique either.

I believe in God, I believe that he created everything but I also think from observing that he really didn't need to do any more than just kickstart things and let things unfold as he may have had envisioned them since he knows all.

Life coming out of the abiogenesis idea is not really that strange to me either. I think it's very much probable and likely may have had happened that way. Once you allow the law of physics and chemistry and biology to have their way life would come out of it logically. Just like if you allow gravity alone, it would shape universes.

I am saying that if God started things with certain rules, then to me he doesn't need to intervene. And a nod back to what Jac earlier said here

It's mostly about what is and what is not possible without GOD first creating, driving and sustaining all that exists. And to illustrate that, is why I highlighted the numerous, mathematically/statistically insurmountable and improbable odds, specific obstacles and limits, as to what things it is rational to believe possible of non-intelligent things and sheer chance. And, of course, evolution itself explains absolutely ZERO about the FAR more important questions concerning the origins of everything that preceded it, and that it would have been entirely dependent upon, IF indeed it did occur. Evolution is a mere sideshow debate that obscures the far more important questions.

I once had a discussion with an atheist about the universe and time and the beginning of all things and God. And it boiled down to whether it's easy to believe in a universe that exists itself or a God that exists himself. Really because that is all that it boils down to. There is no other probability or odd that can't be fathomed or explained. It can be, even in partial, some are yet to be discovered. You say it's highly unlikely...but I say on the cosmic scale, yes it's entirely possible.

On the cosmic scale these odds are not only trivial they are bound to be elsewhere as well in the universe. The argument you are presenting really doesn't do much. There is evidence of abiogenesis, not full yet but the inclination of it happening is there with mounting evidence as time passes on. I guess what I am saying that it really isn't that much of a problem that needs a special intervention.

Have you read any studies on abiogenesis? I would recommend a paper:
Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water
And the article reference to it in sciencedaily.com Missing links brewed in primordial puddles?

Here's the abstract:

The crucibles that bore out building blocks of life may have been, in many cases, not fiery cataclysms, but modest puddles. Researchers working with that hypothesis have achieved a significant advancement toward understanding the evolutionary mystery of how components of RNA and DNA formed from chemicals present on early Earth before life existed. In surprisingly simple reactions they have produced good candidates for their precursors that even spontaneously joined up to look like RNA.

Let me know what you think.

[PaulSacramento]

Skeptics can view evolution as a "god-less process" because their idea of God is a "Sunday School God" in the clouds, an old man with a beard.
We know that God is the creator and sustainer of all, we know that nothing can exist without God and as such, we know that the process we call evolution, a process that we are learning more and more about each day, a process that is NOT what it was 100 years ago ( and only God knows what it will be 100 years from now, what discoveries we will find about it), could not come to be without God.

The degree of autonomy is what, IMO, concerns some Christians.
Too much like deism for some and I agree.

Thing is, while we have evidence for the randomness of mutations ( or at least the APPEARANCE of randomness), we can't really say that it is unguided since those "random changes" can be "utilised" by the organism via what is called "natural selection", in short a "guided process" of some sort that we still don't fully understand (though there are theories as to who it works but none to WHY it works).

While I am not going to insert the " god of the gaps" here, what I will stay is that God as the sustainer of all IS the driving force of ALL.