Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[SavedByTheLord]

"and then magic occured!"

Yep, makes totally more sense then demonstrable natural processes backed by evidence.

Seems like evolutionist have Almighty God envy.

God Almighty can do anything and so there is nothing in the world that is not explainable by the Almighty power of God.
But evolutionists do not have that. So they pretend that with enough time, anything is possible and thus there is nothing in the world that cannot be explained with enough time.

But that is not true. Abiogenesis is impossible forever as is a finely turned orderly universe from nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seems like evolutionist have Almighty God envy.

I have no "god envy" any more then I have tooth fairy envy.

God Almighty can do anything and so there is nothing in the world that is not explainable by the Almighty power of God.

Yes, once you allow for magic, then anything is possible.
Abracadabra, poof!

Great "explanation" you got there.

But evolutionists do not have that.

Yeah... why roll up your sleeves and do the hard work of science, when you can just sit back and say "magic occured" and be done with it, ha?
Intellectual lazyness is indeed a lot easier then actually figuring out how stuff works.

Thank goodness many humans don't think like that, or we'ld still be living in caves fighting over fire.

 

[ratiocinator]

Seems like evolutionist have Almighty God envy.

Quite the opposite. Every time I see a post like this, I am incredibly relieved that I escaped from this sort of inane nonsense while I was still relatively young.

God Almighty can do anything and so there is nothing in the world that is not explainable by the Almighty power of God.

You don't seem to understand that this is not a good thing. Something that can 'explain' anything actually explains nothing. It's just a vacuous 'just-so' story An unfalsifiable, untestable narrative that could be replaced by any other magical story and leave us with exactly the level of 'explanation', i.e. none at all.

But evolutionists do not have that.

And that is a very good thing if you're at all interested in the truth, rather than baseless storytelling.

What evolutionists have, along with cosmologists, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists, geneticists, and statisticians, have, is an evidence-based, testable, falsifiable, scientific picture of the development of the universe from a hot dense state some 13.7 billion years ago to the present along with complex life.

While not all the details are certain yet, the general picture is very well supported by endless evidence. Give me this over blind faith any time.

So they pretend that with enough time, anything is possible and thus there is nothing in the world that cannot be explained with enough time.

Simply untrue. This is the problem with clinging to blind faith. It often leads you into beliefs that are simply wrong, and demonstrably wrong. No credible scientists has ever claimed this. You are bearing false witness, even if it's not deliberate.

Abiogenesis is impossible forever as is a finely turned orderly universe from nothing.

And you have totally failed to back up either of these rather silly and baseless assertions and have run away from all the counterarguments.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Quite the opposite. Every time I see a post like this, I am incredibly relieved that I escaped from this sort of inane nonsense while I was still relatively young.


You don't seem to understand that this is not a good thing. Something that can 'explain' anything actually explains nothing. It's just a vacuous 'just-so' story An unfalsifiable, untestable narrative that could be replaced by any other magical story and leave us with exactly the level of 'explanation', i.e. none at all.


And that is a very good thing if you're at all interested in the truth, rather than baseless storytelling.

What evolutionists have, along with cosmologists, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists, geneticists, and statisticians, have, is an evidence-based, testable, falsifiable, scientific picture of the development of the universe from a hot dense state some 13.7 billion years ago to the present along with complex life.

While not all the details are certain yet, the general picture is very well supported by endless evidence. Give me this over blind faith any time.


Simply untrue. This is the problem with clinging to blind faith. It often leads you into beliefs that are simply wrong, and demonstrably wrong. No credible scientists has ever claimed this. You are bearing false witness, even if it's not deliberate.


And you have totally failed to back up either of these rather silly and baseless assertions and have run away from all the counterarguments.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Quite the opposite. Every time I see a post like this, I am incredibly relieved that I escaped from this sort of inane nonsense while I was still relatively young.


You don't seem to understand that this is not a good thing. Something that can 'explain' anything actually explains nothing. It's just a vacuous 'just-so' story An unfalsifiable, untestable narrative that could be replaced by any other magical story and leave us with exactly the level of 'explanation', i.e. none at all.


And that is a very good thing if you're at all interested in the truth, rather than baseless storytelling.

What evolutionists have, along with cosmologists, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists, geneticists, and statisticians, have, is an evidence-based, testable, falsifiable, scientific picture of the development of the universe from a hot dense state some 13.7 billion years ago to the present along with complex life.

While not all the details are certain yet, the general picture is very well supported by endless evidence. Give me this over blind faith any time.


Simply untrue. This is the problem with clinging to blind faith. It often leads you into beliefs that are simply wrong, and demonstrably wrong. No credible scientists has ever claimed this. You are bearing false witness, even if it's not deliberate.


And you have totally failed to back up either of these rather silly and baseless assertions and have run away from all the counterarguments.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[ratiocinator]

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

More running away.

This has been addressed many, many times by many different people from the first time you posted it. It's like you've come here with some list of questions that you thought would totally stump atheists and don't know what to do when you get actual answers, so you resort to just repeating yourself.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More running away.

This has been addressed many, many times by many different people from the first time you posted it. It's like you've come here with some list of questions that you thought would totally stump atheists and don't know what to do when you get actual answers, so you resort to just repeating yourself.

The answer from the evolutionists is that they do not know, they have theories and they expect that to be answered soon.
So, no answer whatsoever.

So what about the first living creature?
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^200,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^180,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^200,000 to 1 or more than 10^320,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^500,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one base pair is 30 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 7 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^7 million to 1 or greater than 10^14 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^13,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.

 

[ratiocinator]

The answer from the evolutionists is that they do not know, they have theories and they expect that to be answered soon.

They have pointed out that it is an area of ongoing research and that there are several perfectly reasonable hypotheses. This is science doing what it does.

The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^200,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^180,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^200,000 to 1 or more than 10^320,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^500,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one base pair is 30 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 7 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^7 million to 1 or greater than 10^14 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^13,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.

More pointless repetition of baseless nonsense, i.e. running away.

You say "Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature", why? Where is the justification? How are you even defining "living creature"?

People have addressed these points and asked these questions multiple times, and you take no notice at all, just endlessly repeat the same baseless assumptions and worthless 'calculations'.

You've also ignored the point that you can't turn any amount of improbability into impossibility. doubly so when you don't know how many opportunities there are and that the one outcome you envisage was somehow intended or required.

To know the number of opportunities you'd need to know the absolute size of the universe (not the observable universe), which is unknown and might be infinite. So even if your assumptions and maths were correct (which they aren't) you still couldn't call it impossible.

Improbable things happen all the time. Want to generate something with a probability of 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 within the confines of a small table? Just shuffle a deck of cards.

It's only if you want just one specific outcome that things become at all remarkable. I don't know how many ways there are for evolution to get going, and neither does anybody else.

Also, yet again:

Evolution in an RNA World

A longstanding research goal has been to develop a self-sustained chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. The notion of primitive RNA-based life suggests this goal might be achieved by constructing an RNA enzyme that catalyzes ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Broken record is broken

 

[YoursTrue]

The answer from the evolutionists is that they do not know, they have theories and they expect that to be answered soon.
So, no answer whatsoever.

So what about the first living creature?
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^200,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^180,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^200,000 to 1 or more than 10^320,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^500,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one base pair is 30 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 7 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^7 million to 1 or greater than 10^14 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^13,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.

And sometimes their theories may be true... they're not sure but all that's ok in the name of science. You are so perfectly right in describing the complexity of the atom.

 

[ratiocinator]

And sometimes their theories may be true... they're not sure but all that's ok in the name of science.

And baseless, blind, evidence-free dogma, in the name of faith, is better, eh? And, of course, managing to still not understand the term theory, in the scientific sense, after all the time you've been posting here must have required endless effort learning to breath with your head in the sand.

Theories are well tested and backed up by evidence. Some things, such as abiogenesis, are, as yet, only hypotheses, which are potential answers that need testing.

The complexity of atoms and the way they joint together is well understood, although predicting 3-d patterns can be difficult in practice.

 

[YoursTrue]

And baseless, blind, evidence-free dogma, in the name of faith, is better, eh? And, of course, managing to still not understand the term theory, in the scientific sense, after all the time you've been posting here must have required endless effort learning to breath with your head in the sand.

Theories are well tested and backed up by evidence. Some things, such as abiogenesis, are, as yet, only hypotheses, which are potential answers that need testing.

The complexity of atoms and the way they joint together is well understood, although predicting 3-d patterns can be difficult in practice.

If I thought like you and others might, oh well ... Have a good one...I decided differently a while back after believing all the hopeless educated attitudes of some. I was a good student. I appreciate what some science has accomplished. But much of scientific philosophy is conjecture and offers no hope. I look forward to the future in many ways as I am and will be alive. Matthew 24:14.

 

[ratiocinator]

I decided differently a while back...

Differently to what? The basic terminology? The process of science?

...after believing all the hopeless educated attitudes of some.

Such as?

I was a good student.

So how come your posts on here show almost complete ignorance of even the most basic terminology, let alone the actual science? Even if you decided you disagreed, why would you forget what you disagreed with? Did you have some sort of memory wipe too? Selective amnesia or something?

But much of scientific philosophy is conjecture and offers no hope.

So mush wrongness is so few words! Where to start? Not sure what you mean by "scientific philosophy", the philosophy of science is a separate subject. Conjecture is a separate category alongside theory and hypothesis, i.e. a speculative idea that hasn't been formulated into a potentially testable hypothesis. What do you mean by hope? Hope of a solution or some sort of other hope? Your reference to the bible suggests the latter, which means you're looking in the wrong place if you expect it from science. Science is there to get us closer to the truth, not give you some personal satisfaction.

There is really no confusion here:

The big bang (in its correct usage of the universe that expanded from a hot, dense state some 13.5 billion years ago) is a theory.

The very early universe (as we get nearer and nearer to the possible 'start') moves beyond tested theory and becomes more and more hypothetical.

The very start (if there was one) is definitely is the subject of many hypotheses and, indeed, more speculative conjectures.

Evolution is definitely a very well supported theory.

Abiogenesis has many reasonable hypotheses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I thought like you and others might, oh well ... Have a good one...I decided differently a while back after believing all the hopeless educated attitudes of some. I was a good student.

What's a "hopeless educated attitude?"

I appreciate what some science has accomplished. But much of scientific philosophy is conjecture and offers no hope. I look forward to the future in many ways as I am and will be alive. Matthew 24:14.

This sounds like you just said that you accept the science that you personally like and reject that which you don't like because it makes you feel hopeless. Do you think that's a good reason to reject scientific findings?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I thought like you and others might, oh well ... Have a good one...I decided differently a while back after believing all the hopeless educated attitudes of some.

Yes, you "decided". I like the way you worded that. As if it was a trivial decision, not based on anything other then personal opinion and preference.
I don't "decide" what my beliefs are. My beliefs are a matter of compulsion based on rational evidence.

I was a good student.

The evidence shows otherwise.

I appreciate what some science has accomplished. But much of scientific philosophy is conjecture and offers no hope.

The purpose of science is to provide explanations of how things work. Not "hope".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

They have pointed out that it is an area of ongoing research and that there are several perfectly reasonable hypotheses. This is science doing what it does.


More pointless repetition of baseless nonsense, i.e. running away.

You say "Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature", why? Where is the justification? How are you even defining "living creature"?

People have addressed these points and asked these questions multiple times, and you take no notice at all, just endlessly repeat the same baseless assumptions and worthless 'calculations'.

You've also ignored the point that you can't turn any amount of improbability into impossibility. doubly so when you don't know how many opportunities there are and that the one outcome you envisage was somehow intended or required.

To know the number of opportunities you'd need to know the absolute size of the universe (not the observable universe), which is unknown and might be infinite. So even if your assumptions and maths were correct (which they aren't) you still couldn't call it impossible.

Improbable things happen all the time. Want to generate something with a probability of 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 within the confines of a small table? Just shuffle a deck of cards.

It's only if you want just one specific outcome that things become at all remarkable. I don't know how many ways there are for evolution to get going, and neither does anybody else.

Also, yet again:

Evolution in an RNA World

A longstanding research goal has been to develop a self-sustained chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. The notion of primitive RNA-based life suggests this goal might be achieved by constructing an RNA enzyme that catalyzes ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So you do not understand probability and statistics.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you do not understand probability and statistics.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Is that a no?

 

[ratiocinator]

Is that a no?

No, it means you've proved that you are mathematically illiterate: >here< and yet you're trying to tell me that I don't understand probability and statistics. You haven't even tried to tell me what was wrong about what I posted.

Throwing out baseless accusations is really not a great look.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it means you've proved that you are mathematically illiterate: >here< and yet you're trying to tell me that I don't understand probability and statistics. You haven't even tried to tell me what was wrong about what I posted.

Throwing out baseless accusations is really not a great look.

Not me.

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.